Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As stated in the earlier part of the order, adjustment has been made on account of AMP expenses by the TPO in different years on different reasons by ITA.No.7933/Del./2018 & SA.No.965/Del./2018 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram.

applying different methods. For instance, in the appeals for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009- 10, the TPO has computed the adjustment by applying 'Bright Line Test'; in the appeals for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2012-13 adjustment has been completed by applying 'Profit Split Method' and for the Assessment Year 2013-14 from the stage of the DRP, 'Other Method' has been applied. In all the years, the TPO has held that incurring of excess AMP expenses amounts to 'international transactions' as defined in Section 92B of the Act. He has compared the advertisement and marketing expenses with the sales turnover and thereafter concluded that the assessee company has created marketing intangibles for promotion of PepsiCo Inc (AE) without receiving any compensation for the same. The entire expenditure is to promote trade mark owned by its AE and developing the marketing intangibles for the product of the AE, and therefore, AE has benefitted from such AMP expenses and ITA.No.7933/Del./2018 & SA.No.965/Del./2018 Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram.

65. As stated above, from the Assessment Years 2006-07 to Assessment Year 2008-09, the TPO has applied BLT not only for identifying the international transaction but also for making the adjustment. From the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 TPO has changed his stand and adjustment has been made by applying 'Profit Split Method'. As per Rule 10B(1)(d) PSM has to be applied, vis-à-vis the international transaction involving unique intangibles in the following manner: -

(i) the combined net profit of the associated enterprises ("AEs") arising from the international transaction in which they are engaged is to be determined first;