LOUIS VUITTON INDIA RETAIL PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.775/Mum/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

Louis Vuitton India Retail P. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 901-A, Ninth Floor, Circle-1(2)(1), Time Tower, Mumbai. Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana. PAN: AAACL8230E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Shri Gaurav Gupta & Shri Ankit Sahin, Advocates Department By : Shri Peeyush Jain, CIT, DR

Date of Hearing : 28.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : .03.2017

ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

(AO) u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year

2010-11.

pricing adjustment towards Advertisement, marketing and promotion

expenses amounting to Rs.4,48,09,156/-.

subsidiary of Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, France and is engaged in the

business of retailing the products of the group. The assessee imports

material from its group companies and resells the same in the Indian

markets. The products which are imported in India by the assessee are

fashion accessories, leather bags and shoes. The assessee filed return

declaring Nil income and also reported certain international transactions.

The AO referred the matter of determination of arm’s length price (ALP)

of the international transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).

The TPO observed that the international transactions reported by the

assessee included Import of finished goods, Export of goods and

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

Reimbursement of expenses. For Import and Export transactions, the

assessee applied Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate

method, whereas for the Reimbursement of expenses paid, the assessee

applied Comparable Uncontrolled Method. During the course of the

proceedings, the TPO observed that the assessee incurred advertisement,

marketing and promotion (AMP) expenses. Treating this as an

international transaction, the TPO applied bright line test and determined

the ratio of the assessee’s operating income to AMP expenses (excluding

distribution expenses) at 6.91%. Certain comparables were chosen

whose average of similar ratio was determined at 1.42%. Considering

such average ratio as a benchmark, the TPO proposed transfer pricing

adjustment on account of AMP expenses at Rs.4,48,09,156/-. No relief

was allowed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The AO in the

final assessment order, made the said addition, against which the

assessee has come up in appeal before us.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

material on record. The assessee, in the extant case, has raised two sets

of additional grounds, one of which is as under :-

“i. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Transfer pricing Officer (TPO) has erred in law and facts, in determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) for an alleged international transaction wherein no specific reference has been received from the Assessing Officer (AO). ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the action of the TPO in categorizing the unilateral advertising, marketing and business promotion expenditure as an ‘international transaction’ under chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is erroneous as TPO exceeded his jurisdiction particularly when section 92CA of the Act enables the TPO only to compute the arm’s length of international transaction.”

grounds. We, therefore, admit the same and take them up for disposal

on merits.

argued similar issues as have been raised in the instant appeal before the

Delhi tribunal in Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.

6314/Del/2015 firstly, challenging the jurisdiction of the Transfer

Pricing Officer (TPO) in determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

the international transaction of Advertising, marketing and promotion

expenses (AMP expenses) and secondly, contending that the incurring of

AMP expenses is not an international transaction. The tribunal vide its

order dated 15.7.2016 since reported as (2016) 47 CCH 0458 DelTrib

rejected both the contentions of the assessee. Certain additional

arguments have been instantly made, which we will advert to at the

appropriate place.

in the absence of any specific reference received from the AO, the TPO

was not entitled to determine the ALP of the international transaction of

AMP and, in doing so, he exceeded his jurisdiction. It is noticed that the

Finance Act, 2011 has inserted sub-section (2A) to section 92CA w.e.f.

1.6.2011 which provides that : `Where any other international

transaction [other than an international transaction referred under sub-

section (1),] comes to the notice of the Transfer Pricing Officer during

the course of the proceedings before him, the provisions of this Chapter

shall apply as if such other international transaction is an international

transaction referred to him under sub-section (1).’ A bare perusal of the 5

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

above provision fairly indicates that where any international transaction,

other than those referred by the AO, comes to the notice of the TPO

during the course of proceedings before him, it shall be considered as if

such an international transaction has also been referred to him. Since the

reference was made by the AO to the TPO on 22.2.2012, which is a date

posterior to 1.6.2011, being the date of insertion of sub-section (2A), we

hold that the TPO was justified in assuming jurisdiction over the

international transaction of AMP, which came to his notice during the

course of proceedings before him.

for implementation of transfer pricing provisions. Referring to para 3.4

of this Instruction, the ld. AR argued that the AO must have first

provided an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before recording

a satisfaction in respect of the transaction of AMP expenses. Then, he

referred to para 4.1 of the Instruction to submit that the TPO could not

have undertaken the exercise of determining the ALP of the international

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

transaction of AMP expenses. It was submitted that the said Instruction,

albeit dated March, 2016, is curative and, hence, retrospective in nature.

It was submitted that the Instruction be given retrospective effect and,

accordingly, the jurisdiction of the AO/TPO to determine the ALP of

AMP expenses be declared invalid. He relied on certain decisions to

fortify his point of view, which we will discuss a little later.

procedural in nature and, hence, can never have a retrospective effect.

To be more specific, he submitted that no Instruction issued by the

CBDT laying down a particular procedure to be followed by the

authorities can ever be retrospective in nature. It was submitted that

since the language of section 92CA(2A) and (2B) is clear and

unambiguous which does not admit of any doubt in providing that the

jurisdiction of the TPO is not limited to the international transactions

either reported by the assessee or referred to by the AO, there is no need

to look into the Instruction, at least before the date of its applicability.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

decision, first, the content of the Instruction and second, the prospective

or retrospective effect of the Instruction.

the Instruction to bolster his argument that the AO could not have

referred the matter of ALP of AMP expenses to the TPO without

recording his satisfaction and such satisfaction could have recorded

only after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Let us see the

contents of para 3.4 of the Instruction, which read as under :-

“3.4 For cases to be referred by the AO to the TPO in accordance with paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 above, in respect of transactions having the following situations, the AO must, as a jurisdictional requirement, record his satisfaction that there is an income or a potential of an income arising and/or being affected on determination of the ALP of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction before seeking approval of the PCIT or CIT to refer the matter to the TPO for determination of the ALP:

• where the taxpayer has not filed the Accountant’s report under Section 92E of the Act but the international transactions or specified domestic transactions undertaken by it come to the notice of the AO;

• where the taxpayer has not declared one or more international transaction or specified domestic transaction in the Accountant’s

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

report filed under Section 92E of the Act and the said transaction or transactions come to the notice of the AO; and

• where the taxpayer has declared the international transactions or specified domestic transactions in the Accountant’s report filed under Section 92E of the Act but has made certain qualifying remarks to the effect that the said transactions are not international transactions or specified domestic transactions or they do not impact the income of the taxpayer.

In the above three situations, the AO must provide an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction or otherwise. In case no objection is raised by the taxpayer to the applicability of Chapter X [Sections 92 to 92F] of the Act to these three situations, then AO should refer the international transaction or specified domestic transaction to the TPO for determining the ALP after obtaining the approval of the PCIT or CIT. However, where the applicability of Chapter X [Sections 92 to 92F] to these three situations is objected to by the taxpayer, the AO must consider the taxpayer’s objections and pass a speaking order so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. If the AO decides in the said order that the transaction in question needs to be referred to the TPO, he should make a reference after obtaining the approval of the PCIT or CIT.”

case falls under the second bullet point of the para inasmuch as the

assessee did not report AMP expenses as an international transaction.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

before making a reference by the AO to the TPO, there is a jurisdictional

requirement on the part of the AO to record his satisfaction that there is

an income or a potential of an income arising on determination of the

ALP of an international transaction before seeking approval of the CIT

where the assessee, inter alia, has not declared a particular transaction as

international transaction in its report filed u/s 92E. Before recording

such a satisfaction, it is incumbent on the part of the AO to provide an

opportunity of hearing to the assessee and, thereafter, pass a speaking

order, if the assessee objects to the AO’s version. It is only when the

taxpayer fails to declare an international transaction, which comes to the

notice of the AO, who makes reference to the TPO for determining its

ALP, that the satisfaction has to be recorded by him after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We do not find the assessee’s

case falling under the second bullet point, because it is not the AO who

formulated his view on AMP expenses as an international transaction

and then required determination of its ALP by the TPO. As in the instant

case, the AO did not make any reference to the TPO for determining the 10

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

ALP of the unreported international transaction of AMP expenses, this

para of the Instruction, can have no application.

by the ld. AR, similar to Nikon’s case (supra), by relying on para 4 of

the Instruction, which reads as under :-

“4.1 The role of the TPO begins after a reference is received from the AO. In terms of Section 92CA, this role is limited to the determination of the ALP in relation to international transactions or specified domestic transactions referred to him by the AO. However, if any other international transaction comes to the notice of the TPO during the course of the proceedings before him, then he is empowered to determine the ALP of such other international transactions also by virtue of Section 92CA (2A) and (2B). The transfer price has to be determined by the TPO in terms of Section 92C. The price has to be determined by using any one of the methods stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 92C and by applying the most appropriate method referred to in Sub-section (2) thereof. There may be occasions where application of the most appropriate method provides results which are different but equally reliable. In all such cases, further scrutiny may be necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of the method, the correctness of the data, weight given to various factors and so on. The selection of the most appropriate method will depend upon the facts of the case and the factors mentioned in Rule 100. The TPO, after taking into account all relevant facts and data available to him, shall determine the ALP and pass a speaking order.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

of the TPO is limited to the determination of the ALP of the

international transactions referred to him by the AO. This para further

provides : “However, if any other international transaction comes to the

notice of the TPO during the course of proceedings before him then he is

empowered to determine the ALP of such other international transaction

also by virtue of section 92CA(2A) and (2B).” On going through this

mandate of the Instruction, it becomes overt that though the original

jurisdiction of the TPO is confined to the international transactions

referred to him by the AO for determination of the ALP, but, such

jurisdiction is extendable to other international transactions which come

to his notice during the course of proceedings before him. It is nowhere

laid down that the power of the TPO to determine the ALP of an

international transaction is restricted to those referred by the AO alone.

This part of the Instruction is in line with the statutory mandate

contained in sub-section (2A) and (2B) of section 92CA.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) has

decided this very issue in favour of the Revenue by holding in para 47

that:

`The majority decision of the Tribunal in L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd. (supra) has rightly drawn a distinction between sub-section (2B) and sub- section (2A) to Section 92CA of the Act. Sub-section (2A) was inserted in 2011, i.e. nearly one year before insertion of Section (2B) by the Finance Act, 2012. Sub- section (2A) has not been given retrospective effect and it applies only w.e.f. 1st June, 2011. Sub-section (2A) applies to any international transaction or specified domestic transaction of which reference has not been made to the TPO under sub-section (1). With effect from 1st June, 2011, the TPO can go into arm’s length pricing of an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction not referred to him. The distinction between sub-section (2A) and (2B) being that the first clause relates to a declared international transaction, i.e. in respect of which a report under Section 92E has been furnished, whereas sub- section (2B) refers to international transactions in respect of which report under Section 92E is not furnished’.

jurisdictional High Court on sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of section 92CA

of the Act, it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the TPO is

empowered to determine the ALP of any other international transaction

which comes to his notice during the course of proceedings before him.

As the instant international transaction of AMP expenses was taken note

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

of by the TPO, we do not find any lack of jurisdiction in his proceeding with the determination of its ALP.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

implementation of certain provisions cannot assume the character of a

legislative provision so as to toy with the possibility of applying the

same retrospectively. We are reminded of the decision of the Hon’ble

jurisdictional High Court in DIT vs. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 246 CTR 422

(Del), in which the assessee, inter alia, relied on Instruction no. 1829 dt.

21.9.1989 to claim that no taxable event took place in India. The

Revenue argued before the Hon’ble High Court that such Instruction

stood withdrawn `with immediate effect’ by a later Circular No. 7 of

2009 dt. 22nd Oct., 2009, and hence the later Circular be treated as

retrospective. The argument of the ld. AR in case before us is similar to

that advanced by the Revenue in that case before the Hon’ble High

Court that the later Instruction implemented `with immediate effect’ be

given retrospective effect. Rejecting the contention of retrospective

effect advanced on behalf of the Revenue, the Hon’ble High Court held

that : `Although Instruction No. 1829 stands withdrawn by virtue of

Circular No. 7 of 2009 dt. 22nd Oct., 2009, such withdrawal can have

no retrospective effect and the principle laid down in Instruction No.

1829 must continue to govern the assessment for the relevant year’. 15

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

When the language of sections 92C and 92CA etc. does not provide for

the AO to afford an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction in terms of para 3.4, we fail to comprehend as

to how this procedural aspect made applicable ‘with immediate effect’ from 10th March, 2016, can be read in the provision ab initio. If this Instruction, as argued by the ld. AR, is construed as retrospective

enjoining upon the AO to record satisfaction as discussed in para 3.4, it would render several earlier assessment orders containing transfer pricing additions, null and void. Since this procedure has been put in place by the CBDT with effect from 10th March, 2016, it has to be treated as prospective at least in respect of assessments which have been

completed before the date prescribed in the Circular, which means that

the TPOs/AOs will follow the same qua the matters under their consideration on 10th March, 2016 and onwards.

Court in Indorama Synthetics (India) Ltd. VS. Adtl. CIT (2016) 386 ITR

665 (Delhi) to buttress the contention that the assessment be set aside for

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

not giving opportunity to the assessee before making reference to the

TPO, in our considered opinion is far-fetched. In that case, it was held

that the AO must provide opportunity of being heard to taxpayer before

recording his satisfaction or otherwise. The decision is not germane to

the issue under consideration, primarily, because it was delivered on a

writ petition filed by the assessee against the notice and not in an appeal

after the completion of assessment. Further, the matter was closed by

giving option to the AO to consider the question if a reference should be

made to the TPO `afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of

being heard’. Similar position prevails in Alpha Nippon Innovatives Ltd.

VS. DCIT - Special Civil Application No. 7720 of 2016 (Gujarat), a copy

of which order dated 16.11.2016 has been placed at page 48 onwards of

the assessee’s paper book. In that case also, the matter was remitted to

the AO for passing a speaking order before making a reference to the

TPO, after considering the objections raised by the assessee and

simultaneously the assessee was specifically restrained from taking a

plea of limitation. Similarly, in the other case of Shri Vishnu Eatables

(India) Ltd. VS. DCIT (2016) 74 taxmann.com 89 (P&H), the assesee 17

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

challenged the validity of reference on the ground that the non-passing

of the reasoned order in terms of Instruction no. 3/2016 dated 10.3.2016

as to whether a transaction is an international transaction or not and non-

service of the order upon the assessee would make the reference null and

void. Rejecting this contention, the Hon’ble High Court held : `As we

noted earlier, the purpose of this entire exercise is inter alia to afford the

assessee an opportunity of establishing at the threshold that the

transaction is not an international transaction. If his objections are

overruled it is open for him to challenge the same before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Disputes Resolution

Panel, as the case may be. An assessee is not entitled as a matter of right

to invoke the writ jurisdiction at the stage of reference by the Assessing

Officer to the TPO. His grievances can be raised in a challenge to the

draft assessment order before the Disputes Resolution Panel or the final

assessment order before to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The requirements of the rules of natural justice and of the said circular

dated 10.03.2016 would have been met even if the satisfaction note is

furnished subsequently. As we noted earlier, in any event the assessee 18

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

cannot raise the question as to whether or not the referred transaction is

an international transaction before the Transfer Pricing Officer. It is,

therefore, sufficient if he is served with the order subsequently even

along with the draft assessment order or the assessment order as the case

may be’. Thus it is vivid that this decision also does not bolster the

assessee’s point of view because here, the Hon’ble High Court held that

failure to supply satisfaction note to the assessee before making

reference of international transaction to the TPO is at the highest a mere

irregularity, which does not itself make reference void ab initio. Thus it

is clear that none of the cases relied by the ld. AR fortify his contention

of quashing the assessment order. We, therefore, jettison the argument

advanced by the ld. AR that this Instruction be given retrospective effect

in respect of the completed assessments. It is, ergo, held that the TPO

was within his jurisdiction in proceeding to determine the ALP of the

international transaction of AMP expenses and further, in principle,

there is no flaw in the AO making transfer pricing addition, which action

is also intra vires.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

pricing adjustment of AMP expenses. The ld. AR contended that the

incurring of AMP expenses is not an international transaction at all and,

hence, there can be no question of determining the arm’s length price of

this transaction or making any addition thereon. He relied on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

& Another vs. CIT (2015) 129 DTR 25 (Del) and CIT vs. Whirlpool of

India Ltd. (2015) 94 CCH 156 DEL-HC to contend that the AMP

expenses could not be considered as an international transaction. In the

light of these judgments and some other Tribunal orders, it was

submitted that there was no international transaction of AMP expenses

on the basis of principles laid down in these judgments and, hence, the

entire exercise of determining its ALP and, consequently, making

transfer pricing adjustment, be set aside.

the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericson Mobile

Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) in

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

which AMP expenses have been held to be an international transaction

and the matter of determination of its ALP has been restored. He also

relied on a later judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in

Yum Restaurants (India) P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2016) 380 ITR 637 (Del) and

still another judgment dated 28.1.2016 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

in Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for the AY

2010-11) in which the question as to whether AMP expenses is an

international transaction has been restored for a fresh determination. It

was argued, similar to Nikon’s case (supra), that the judgment in the

case of Yum Restaurants and Sony Ericson (for AY 2010-11) delivered

in January, 2016 is later in point of time to the earlier judgments in the

case of Maruti Suzuki and Whirlpool, etc., and, hence, the matter should

be restored for a fresh determination. Similar to Nikon’s case (supra), it

was submitted that there is no blanket rule of the AMP expenses as a

non-international transaction. He further stated that the Hon’ble High

Court in Whirlpool (supra) has made certain observations, which should

be properly weighed for ascertaining if an international transaction of

AMP expenses, exists. It was argued that the Tribunal in several cases 21

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

has restored this issue to the file of TPO to be decided afresh in the light

of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericson

Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118

(Del) and others. He also relied on still another judgment dated

28.1.2016 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sony Ericson Mobile

Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for the AY 2010-11) in which the

question as to whether AMP expenses is an international transaction, has

been restored for a fresh determination. Similar to Nikon’s case (supra),

he still further referred to three later judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi

High Court, viz., Rayban Sun Optics India Ltd. VS. CIT (dt. 14.9.2016),

Pr. CIT VS. Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd. (dt. 16.8.2016) and Pr. CIT VS. Bose

Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. (dt. 23.8.2016) in all of which similar

issue has been restored for fresh determination in the light of the earlier

judgment in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd.

(supra). The ld. DR argued that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its

earlier decision in Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt.

Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) has held AMP expenses to be an

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

international transaction. It was argued the matter should be restored for

a fresh determination.

material on record. We find that when the TPO held AMP expenses to

be an international transaction, he did not have any occasion to consider

the ratio laid down in several judgments of the Hon’ble jurisdictional

High Court, which is now available for consideration. Respectfully

following the predominant view taken in several Tribunal orders of co-

ordinate benches, we are of the considered opinion that it would be in

the fitness of things if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is

restored to the file of TPO/AO for a fresh determination of the question

as to whether there exists an international transaction of AMP expenses.

If the existence of such an international transaction is not proved, the

matter will end there and then, calling for no transfer pricing addition. If,

on the other hand, the international transaction is found to be existing,

then the TPO will determine the ALP of such an international

transaction in the light of the relevant judgments of the Hon’ble High

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

Court, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the

assessee.

reads as under:-

“i. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP have erred in not granting set-off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation, as per the provisions of section 72 and section 32 of the Act, before determining total income of the Appellant.”

additional ground. As such, we are admitting the additional ground and

taking it up for disposal on merits.

that the AO did not allow the benefit of brought forward losses and

unabsorbed depreciation. We direct the AO to examine the assessee’s

claim and allow necessary relief, if any, as per law.

ITA No.775/Mum/2015

The order pronounced in the open court on 01.03.2017.

Sd/- Sd/-

[KULDIP SINGH] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated, 01st March, 2017. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT

AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.