https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378309 The ITAT New Delhi ruled on three transfer pricing issues. For AMP expenditure treated as international transaction under section 92B(1) read with section 92F(v), the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee. The DRP failed to provide tangible material evidence demonstrating that AMP expenditure constituted an international transaction, despite being aware of the Delhi HC's Maruti Suzuki precedent. The Tribunal rejected revenue's request for remand, stating remands cannot be routine without justifiable circumstances. Regarding IT Support Services transaction benchmarking, the Tribunal remitted the matter to AO/TPO for fresh ALP determination, requiring separate benchmarking distinct from purchase transactions, following similar treatment in AY 2010-11. For revenue expenses related to services from Bhumi Consultants, the Tribunal remitted to AO as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence proving actual receipt of services, despite establishing the vendor's identity and payment through banking channels with TDS deduction. en-us Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378309 The ITAT New Delhi ruled on three transfer pricing issues. For AMP expenditure treated as international transaction under section 92B(1) read with section 92F(v), the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee. The DRP failed to provide tangible material evidence demonstrating that AMP expenditure constituted an international transaction, despite being aware of the Delhi HC's Maruti Suzuki precedent. The Tribunal rejected revenue's request for remand, stating remands cannot be routine without justifiable circumstances. Regarding IT Support Services transaction benchmarking, the Tribunal remitted the matter to AO/TPO for fresh ALP determination, requiring separate benchmarking distinct from purchase transactions, following similar treatment in AY 2010-11. For revenue expenses related to services from Bhumi Consultants, the Tribunal remitted to AO as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence proving actual receipt of services, despite establishing the vendor's identity and payment through banking channels with TDS deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 25 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378309