LOREAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO , MUMBAI

ITA 6623/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 September 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were not an international transaction. It followed its own consistent decisions for earlier assessment years, stating that the revenue failed to prove any arrangement for incurring AMP expenses for the benefit of the Associated Enterprise (AE).

What were the facts?

The assessee, L'Oreal India Private Limited, appealed against an addition made to its total income concerning Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these expenses as an international transaction and made an adjustment under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether AMP expenses incurred by the assessee constitute an international transaction for the purpose of transfer pricing adjustments, and whether the onus is on the revenue to prove such an arrangement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA,Section 92B,Section 143(3),Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing)

L’Oreal India Private Limited DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai A-Wing, 8th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400013. [PAN: AAACL0738K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth Advocate Revenue by Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR Date of Institution 18.12.2024 Date of hearing 04.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.09.2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the addition made in A.Y. assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and section 144B dated 29.10.2024, passed in pursuance of direction of DRP dated 01.08.2024 for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: A Transfer Pricing Grounds Adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion ('AMP') expenses Adjustment proposed by incorrectly applying Section 92CA(3) of the Act and disregarding the relevant submissions made during the assessment proc

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →