AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... code and turnover range where deficiency is reported in audit report. (iii) Large value of International transactions in services including transactions u/s 92B(2) in comparison to Revenue from Sale of Services shown in ITR and low profitability (T.P.Risk Parameter). 2.1 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.06.2022 and Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 09.08.2023 were issued. After that show cause notice dated 21.11.2023 was issued. The assessee, Amadeus India Private Limited, is a joint venture between Ms. Radha Bhatia and family and Bird Travels Private Limited in which the former holds 95% of its equity capital and the remaining share capital of 5% is held by the latter. Amadeus India began its operation in 1994 in New Delhi. The area of operation of assessee included the Indian subcontinent. The company established subsidiaries Indian Subcontinent with offices in Dhaka, Colombo and Kathmandu. Reference for determination of Arm's Length Price ('ALP') with reference to all international transactions specified domestic transactions returned by assessee in report furnished by it u/s 92E of the Act and as per Rule 10E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in Form No. 3CEB for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2024, made the following additions: Sl. No. Description Amount (in INR) 1 Income as per Return of Income filed Nil 2 Income as computed u/s 143(1)(a) Nil 3 Variation in respect of issue 4.5.1 18,75,00,000/- 4 Variation in respect of issue 4.5.2 5,00,000/- 5 Total income /loss determined as per the above proposal 18,80,00,000/- 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds: "1. That on facts and in law the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as the "AO"] / Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred as the "DRP"]/Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred as the "TPOT are bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. That on facts and in law the TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that in absence of a "transaction" as envisaged under section 92F of the Act between appellant and its AE for brand promotion or for establishing marketing intangible, the TPO had no jurisdiction to propose an adjustment on account AMP expenses. 3. That the Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs 18,75,00,000/- on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Sales Promot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of incurring excessive AMP expense by applying the aggregated approach. 5.2 That on facts and in law the DRP erred in holding that appellant has not been able to substantiate benchmarking of alleged AMP "transaction" following an aggregate approach. 6. That on facts and in law the AO/TPO/DRP erred in making / upholding Protective TP Adjustment on account of AMP expenses invoking "Bright Line Method". 7. That on facts and in law the AO/TPO/DRP erred in making / upholding Substantive TP Adjustment on account of AMP expenses invoking "Cost Plus Method". 8 That without prejudice, while benchmarking alleged AMP as a separate "transaction" the TPO has erred in applying a mark-up of 15.01% while computing adjustment on a substantive basis, and 9. That on facts and in law the AO/DRP erred in making/upholding disallowance of Rs 5,00,000/- u/s 14A of the Act. 9.1 That on facts and in law the AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that provisions of Section 14A are not applicable as no exempt income was earned by the appellant during the year under consideration. 9.2 That on facts and in law the AO has erred invoking provisions of Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee and its AE for brand promotion. Ld. TPO has extensively relied upon extracts of Distributorship Agreement between assessee and its AE. The DRP has upheld the conclusions recorded by TPO on existence of an "international transaction". Relevant issue extracts as under: "The Jurisdictional Issue has been decided in favour of the 'A' by Hon'ble ITAT in earlier years and decision of Hon'ble ITAT has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Issue as to whether there exists a "transaction" for brand promotion in the instant case is now settled by appellate orders passed in case of 'A' for earlier assessment years. Kind reference in this regard is invited to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in for AY 09-10 reported in 52 ITR(T) 83(Del) (copy enclosed at pages 129 to 167 of PB-II). Hon'ble ITAT after considering the facts of the case has held that in absence of a "transaction" for brand promotion between 'A' and its AE no TP adjustment for alleged AMP expenses can be made. Kind reference is invited to following extracts of Hon'ble ITAT decision: (a) TPO accepts that "International Transaction" for Provision of ITe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n AY 09-10 has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26.04.2017 in ITA No.154/2017.... Copy enclosed at pages 172-173. D2. The above decisions have thereafter also been followed by Hon'ble ITAT: * In case of 'A' for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1835/Del/2015 vide order dated 23.10.2017 copy enclosed at pages 82-128 of PB-II - conclusions on this issue are at paras 4.4 to 4.7 * In case of 'A' for AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 in ITA Nos. 1811 to 7671/Del/2017 and ITA No. 1662/Del/2016 vide order dated 27.01.2019-copy enclosed at pages 1 to 81 conclusions on this issue are at paras 5.0 to 5.3. It is further submitted that decision of Hon'ble ITAT in AY 2011-12 has also been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA 901 of 2019 vide order dated 16th October 2019 (copy enclosed at pages 174 to 182 of PB-II) * In case of 'A' for AY 2014-15 in ITA No.7376/Del/2018 vide order dated 08.03.2021 - copy enclosed at pages 183-231- conclusions on this issue are in paras 18 to 22. * In case of 'A' for AY 2015-16 in ITA No.8700/Del/2019 vide order dated 31.05.2021 -copy enclosed at pages 232-260-c....