AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Officer (TPO), the latter accepted the declared international transaction at arm's length price (ALP). However, the TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 1,79,94,337/- on account of AMP expenses. The assessee remained unsuccessful before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). This led to the making of addition of Rs. 1.79 crore by the AO in his final order. The assessee is aggrieved against the addition so made by the AO. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2013) 152 TTJ (Del) 273 (SB), by its majority decision held, inter alia, that AMP is a transaction and also an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B of the Act and that the TPO has jurisdiction to compute the ALP of this international transaction despite the same not having been specifically referred to by the AO. On the question of determination of the ALP of this international transaction, the Special bench approved the application of bright line test for working out the amount of non-routine AMP expenses and held that the ALP of AMP expenses should be determined....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome difference in the functions under these international transactions, including that of AMP, between the assessee and the comparables, then, suitable adjustment should be made to bring both the transactions at par. If probable comparables are not performing similar functions as done by the assessee and no adjustment is possible for bringing the international transactions of the assessee in an aggregate manner at par with those undertaken by the comparables, then, segregation should be done and the international transaction of AMP spend should be separately processed under the transfer pricing provisions for the purposes of determining its ALP separately. In such determination of ALP of AMP expenses in a segregated manner, proper set off on account of excess purchase price adjustment should be allowed. The view taken by the Tribunal in segregating routine and non-routine expenses on the basis of bright line test has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. The view taken by the Special Bench that the expenses concerned with the sales, such as, rebates and discounts etc., should be excluded from the ambit of AMP expenses, has been upheld. 6. We can summarize the relevant position....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclared by the assessee was favourably comparable with the average margin of the comparables, which fact has not been disputed by the TPO, then, no adjustment should be made on account of AMP expenses because such expenses stand subsumed in the overall operating profit. This was countered by the ld. DR with reference to certain paras of the judgment in Sony Ericsson (supra) not permitting the acceptance of such a wide proposition. 8. We are unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the assessee for deletion of the addition towards AMP expenses on the plain logic of the assessee's profit margin matching with those of comparables. There is a basic fallacy in the argument of the ld. AR. It is pertinent to note that the TPO examined and got satisfied with the assessee's profit margin vis-à-vis the comparables only qua the international transactions of distribution function. He determined the ALP of AMP expenses by applying bright line test and in this process simply compared the quantitative figures of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee and comparables for working out the non-routine expenses. He did not examine the AMP functions carried out by the assessee and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to bring the AMP functions performed by the assessee as well as the comparable, at the same pedestal. If we concur with the contention of the ld. AR that the addition on account transfer pricing adjustment of AMP expenses be deleted without any examination of the AMP functions carried out by the assessee as well as comparables, this will amount to snatching away the tag of international transaction from AMP expenses, assigned by the Hon'ble High Court. What Their Lordships have held in the judgment is that the distribution activity and AMP expenses are two separate but related international transactions. It is only for the purposes of determining their ALP that these two should be aggregated. The process of such aggregation does not take away the separate character of the AMP transaction, albeit related. An analysis and examination of the distribution and AMP functions carried out by the assessee must be necessarily done in the first instance, which should be then compared with similar functions performed by some probable comparables. If the distribution and AMP functions performed by the assessee turn out to be different from those performed by probable comparables, then, a suit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt has no where laid down that the AMP functions performed by the assessee should not be compared with those performed by the comparable parties. On the contrary, it turned down the contention raised by the ld. AR urging for not treating AMP as a separate function, which is apparent from the extraction from para 165 of the judgment : `On behalf of the assessee, it was initially argued that the TPO cannot account for or treat AMP as a function. This argument on behalf of the assessee is flawed and fallacious for several reasons. There are inherent flaws in the said argument'. It held vide para 165 of the judgment that : `An external comparable should perform similar AMP functions.' Thus it is manifest that comparison of AMP functions is vital which cannot be dispensed with. Let us we go a step further with the alternative prescription of the judgment that if ALP of both the transactions of Distribution and AMP cannot be determined in a combined manner, then the ALP of AMP function should be separately done. The submission advanced by the assessee of considering the profit on an entity level without making comparison of AMP functions done by the assessee as well as the comparable, wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so that the AMP functions performed by the assessee and comparable are brought to a similar platform. In fact, this is also the prescription of Rule 10B(1)(e), which provides as under :- ` (e) transactional net margin method, by which,- (i) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard to any other relevant base ; (ii) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise or by an unrelated enterprise from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transactions is computed having regard to the same base ; (iii) the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market ; (iv) the net profit margin realised by the enterprise and referred to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding of sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 10B, it becomes palpable that the international transaction and the uncontrolled transaction with which comparison is sought to be made for determining the ALP, in the first instance, must have overall similar characteristics. It is vivid that if the goods/services are different, then no effective comparison can be made. Once the goods/services under both the transactions are broadly similar but there is a difference in them because of certain specific characteristics; and/or the products/services in both the transactions are identical, but still there are certain differences due to the contractual terms or the geographical location, etc., then, a reasonably accurate adjustment should be made for eliminating the material effects of such differences so as to bring the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction on the same podium. If due to one reason or the other, no reasonable accurate adjustment can be made due to such differences, then, such uncontrolled transaction should not be considered as a comparable transaction. 13. It is discernible that the prescription of Rule 10B is in complete harmony with the rati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tivity, should be allowed. 15. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, we find that no detail of the AMP functions performed by the assessee is available on record. Similarly, there is no reference in the order of the TPO to any AMP functions performed by comparables. In fact, no such analysis or comparison has been undertaken by the TPO because of his applying the bright line test for determining the value of the international transaction of AMP expense and then applying the cost plus method for determining its ALP. The ld. AR also failed to draw our attention towards any material divulging the AMP functions performed by the assessee as well as comparables. As such, we are handicapped to determine the ALP of AMP expenses at our end, either in a combined or a separate approach. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and send the matter back to the file of the TPO/AO for determining the ALP of the international transaction of AMP spend afresh in accordance with the manner laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sony Ericson Mobile (supra). It is, however, made clear that the TPO/AO, while computing adjustment, if any, on account of AMP expenses will not incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we send the matter back to the TPO/AO for redetermination of the ALP of AMP expenses in accordance with the above guidelines. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a fresh opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings. Ex consequenti, the issue raised about the TPO having no jurisdiction to determine the ALP of AMP expenses, is dismissed following the judgment in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile (supra). 19. The second issue raised in this appeal is against the reduction in the amount of deduction u/s 10A of the Act. 20. Succinctly, the assessee declared total turnover at Rs. 41,77,98,085/-, which included turnover of Rs. 48,87,014/- with respect to STP unit eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The remaining turnover was in relation to non-STP unit. The AO observed that the turnover of STP unit accounted for only 1.20% of total turnover, whereas the assessee had declared 38% of total net profit as attributable to the STP unit. The AO apportioned total expenses amounting to Rs. 2,84,56,217 incurred by the assessee between STP unit and non-STP unit on the basis of the respective turnover in both the units. This resulted in reduction in the amount of deduction u/s 10A to the ....