Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.7. not providing any reason/documentary evidence to demonstrate that the AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant constitute an international transaction;

and 5.8 not appreciating that in case any incidental benefits arise to the associated enterprise ("AE") on account of incurring AMP expenses, these do not constitute intra-group services so as to constitute an international transaction;

5.9. not appreciating the contribution profit split analysis ("CPSM") and Residual Profit Split Method ("RPSM") furnished by the Appellant during assessment proceedings;

5.10. selecting an inappropriate set of comparable companies for the purposes of determining routine return for application of Residual Profit Split Method ("RPSM"); and 5.11 determining the weightage of split for application of RPSM on an adhoc basis, thus violating the fundamental principle of transfer pricing.

5.12. incorrectly considering an arbitrary amount incurred by the Appellant together on alleged AMP expenses and payment of royalty, 5.13. including sales and distribution expenses as part of AMP expenditure, and ignoring the Ld. DRP's directions pronounced in this regard in Appellant's own case for AY 2013-14;

5. During the course of TP assessment proceedings, the learned TPO requested for various information/ documents which were filed from time to time. The Learned TPO issued show-cause notice to the assessee wherein adjustments on account of alleged Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses was proposed to be made by him. The assessee filed its factual and legal submissions qua the proposed adjustment of AMP expenses . The Learned TPO ignored the contentions of the assessee and made transfer pricing adjustment of AMP expenditure which stood confirmed up to the level of Learned DRP and ultimately got culminated in the final ITA Nos. 462 AND 2409/Del/2022 Tupperware India Private Ltd assessment order also by the Learned AO. The Learned TPO held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee are significantly higher than that of comparable companies and applied Bright Line Test (BLT) by charging a markup of 15.61% for alleged brand building services provided to the AEs. The Learned TPO applied Residual Profit Split Method (RPSM) for the alleged international transaction of AMP expenditure. The assessee before the Learned DRP also submitted that AMP expenditure per se cannot be construed as an international transaction and hence there is no need to separately benchmark the same. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs CIT in ITA No.110/2014 and ITA 710 /2015 wherein the Hon‟ble High Court held that onus is to prove that a particular international transaction arising from AMP expenses is on the revenue authorities and not on the assessee .

24. Further we are of the considered view that since Bright Line Test method is used for protective adjustment and Residual Profit Split Method for substantive adjustments, so that shows that the ld. TPO has not found anything from the transactions between the assessee and AE or specific heads of expenditures incurred by the assessee, or specific transactions of AMP expenses of assessee with independent entities, which will establish as evidence of necessity of some compensation from the AE. It is only on the basis of examination of the quantum of AMP expenses the opinion of benefit to AE, has been drawn, which certainly is not sustainable, where the law is that onus is on Revenue to establish existence of an international transaction.