“bright line test”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C120 judgments

The decision most relied on for bright line test is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (374 ITR 118), cited in 499 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bright line test

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court

499

citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT

381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court

220

citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Bausch & Lomb Eye Care (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional CIT

381 ITR 227 · 2016 · High Court

127

citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction must be established before its arm's length price can be determined. An alleged 'excessive' AMP expenditure cannot unilaterally expand the scope of an international transaction if its existence is contested.

Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT

381 ITR 154 · 2016 · High Court

119

citing judgments

Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by an Indian entity directly benefits its own business and cannot be automatically treated as an international transaction for global brand building by associated enterprises without specific statutory provisions or proper analysis.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO

328 ITR 210 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. The Bright Line Test is not a valid basis for determining the existence of an international transaction or computing the arm's length price.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

29 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The 'bright line test' is not an appropriate method for determining the existence of an international transaction for calculating arm's length price. This ruling overrules prior special bench decisions on AMP expenses.

308 ITR 199 (Del) and CIT v. Spice Distribution Ltd.

374 ITR 30 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure on advertisement and sales promotion is generally treated as business expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer cannot treat revenue expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure as the Act does not have such a concept.

LG Electronics v. ACIT

22 ITR 1 · 2013 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Special Bench decision in LG Electronics v. ACIT affirmed the applicability of the 'Bright Line Test' for determining international transactions related to advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses.

Judgments citing bright line test

Ayatna Realty Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assesse in ITA No

ITA 1294/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Wrigley India Private Dcit, Limited Circle-27(2), 206, Okhla Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent) Joint Cit (Osd), M/S Wrigley India Private Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi Vs. 206, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase Iii, New Delhi-110020 Pan-Aaacw1789P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

this clearly established that AMP expenses were for the creation of world- wide brand owned by parent AE. With regard to application of Bright line test (BLT), ld. CIT-DR fairly admitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India

DCIT, Cirlce- 1(1) (1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 165/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

independent transactions of similar or identical nature. American Express Banking Corp. 21 The assessee has also claimed that the TPO has used the Bright Line test (BLT) and applied that as CUP. 22. It may be useful to elaborate on the methodology used for the The assessee has entered into ... secondly, the selection of tested party along with comparables. It was specifically submitted that the Ld. TPO had applied the principle of Bright Line Test by applying the CUP. The principle of Bright Line Test had been rejected off by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in cases of Sony

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 11.1, Kolkata

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating that application of "bright line test" which is not a prescribed method within the purview of section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ... only product promotion and not brand promotion and hence benefit of AMP accrues to the assessee and not to its AE(s).The Bright Line Test (‘BLT') is not one of the prescribed methods under the Act and hence cannot be applied in the assessee`s case under consideration

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating that application of "bright line test" which is not a prescribed method within the purview of section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ... only product promotion and not brand promotion and hence benefit of AMP accrues to the assessee and not to its AE(s).The Bright Line Test (‘BLT’) is not one of the prescribed methods under the Act and hence cannot be applied in the assessee`s case under consideration

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating that application of "bright line test" which is not a prescribed method within the purview of section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ... only product promotion and not brand promotion and hence benefit of AMP accrues to the assessee and not to its AE(s).The Bright Line Test (‘BLT’) is not one of the prescribed methods under the Act and hence cannot be applied in the assessee`s case under consideration

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating that application of "bright line test" which is not a prescribed method within the purview of section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules ... only product promotion and not brand promotion and hence benefit of AMP accrues to the assessee and not to its AE(s).The Bright Line Test (‘BLT’) is not one of the prescribed methods under the Act and hence cannot be applied in the assessee`s case under consideration

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2681/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/MUM/2024[2014-2015 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha(PCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

Expenses may constitute an international transaction, the existence of an arrangement and consequently, an international transaction cannot be presumed on the basis of bright line test only. In the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax: [2016] 381 ITR 117 (Delhi) it has been held ... Delhi High Court that the existence of AMP Expenditure, being an international transaction, will have to be established de hors the bright line test. In absence of any written agreement, whether any arrangement existed or the Assessee along with its AE acted in concert would depend upon the facts

Vodafone Digilink Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha (PCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

T vs. Motor Company Ltd., Chennaivs.ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ppeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

followed by the TPO to vehemently stressed on the incorrect methodology followed by the TPO to make the transfer pricing adjustment i.e. the bright line test, which had make the transfer pricing adjustment i.e. the bright line test, which had make the transfer pricing adjustment i.e. the bright line test ... spends and it or understanding between the parties regarding the AMP spends and it particularly negated the particularly negated the application of bright line test. 4.7 Now in the present case before us, it is the assessee which is the Now in the present case before

Fujitsu India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Fujitsu India P. Ltd., Vs National Faceless Assessment Rectangale-1, D-4, Centre, District Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacf4170D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate, Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar & Shri Kaskaran Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

initial notice sought certain information from the Assessee, post which a show cause notice ("SCN”) was issued wherein both a protective adjustment (using bright line test) and a substantive adjustment (using cost plus method), on account of alleged excessive spend on AMP had been proposed. Later on, another show cause ... from AE. 4 Adjustment proposed on Protective basis The Ld. TPO proposed an adjustment amounting to INR 8,58,91,766 by applying bright line test to determine the amount of excessive AMP expenditure (or cost) incurred by Assessee. 2.4 Aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the Assessee filed

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

making 'intensity adjustment' to adjust net 3 profit margin of comparable companies purportedly to equalise functions. 'Intensity adjustment' is mirror image of Bright Line Test (BLT) both are already invalidated by Hon'ble Courts. 7. Without prejudice to all other grounds, impugned order errs in quantifying AMP expense of appellant ... import of finished goods. Protective Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of international transaction for Marketing and Market Development functions ("MMDF") based on Bright Line Test ("BLT") approach In law and facts of present case: 4 15. Impugned order errs in retaining protective assessment based on BLT Contrary

Greenland Finance and Leasing P. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assesse in ITA No

ITA 1295/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

Greenland Finance and Leasing P. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assesse in ITA No

ITA 1294/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Section 250(6)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

L'Oreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 4577/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarl'Oreal India Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 013, बनाम Income Tax- 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0738K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Prabhash Shankar [Α.Μ.] This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo' For Short) Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp' For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Relevant To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2020-21.The Assessee Has Challenged The Grounds Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion (Amp) Expenses. Following Are The Grounds Raised By The Assessee: Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

arbitrarily and in an adhoc manner selecting comparable companies for manufacturing and distribution segment without adopting a scientific search process for applying bright line test

Fujitsu Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshfujitsu Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3Rd Floor, Building No. 9B, Circle-1(3)(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon, International Taxation, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacf7231M Assessee By : Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, Cit Dr Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 197

income is decided on the basis of involvement in the activities by the non-resident taxpayer in a source country. One of the bright line tests is the quantum of business expenses. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has not incurred any business expenses in India, the only transactions

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

relating to AMP expenditure and relevant agreements entered with them. TPO rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to adopt Bright Line Test (BLT) for benchmarking the AMP expenses and selected 9 comparables and benchmarked the same as under :- Expenses i.r.o Receipt of marketing 64,060,599 support services ... Special bench in the case of LG electronics was the reigning decision and both the TPO/DRP followed that decision and as the bright line test was upheld in LG Electronics decision, the same was duly followed. 3) However, in march 2015, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 9482/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Himanshu S. Sinha & Bhuwan Dhoopar, AdvFor Respondent: S/Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT(DR) & Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

networking segments of the assessee - on substantive basis by applying the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) and on protective basis applying the Bright Line Test (BLT); (b) Adjustments to the arm’s length price of the international transactions in the (i) manufacturing; (ii) trading; and (iii) networking segments; (c) disallowance ... DRP/AO/TPO erred in incorrectly computing margin of the Appellant and the comparables. GROUNDS AGAINST PROTECTIVE ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RELATION TO AMP EXPENSES UNDER BRIGHT LINE TEST METHOD 17. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/AO/TPO have erred in making protective adjustment

Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are allowed subject to the above directions

ITA 8135/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumartupperware India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Spl. Range 9, 204 – 206, Tolstoy House, New Delhi. 15, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaact3770D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 26.10.2018 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Appellant is the economic owner of marketing intangibles commensurate with the functions performed in India; 4.4 not appreciating the fact that application of bright line test ("BLT") is not permissible in the light of the judicial precedents on the issue; 4.5 not providing any reason / documentary evidence to demonstrate that ... accept the overbearing and orotund submission that the exercise to separate 'routine ' and 'nonroutine' AMP or brand building exercise by applying bright line test' of non-comparables and in all case, costs or compensation paid for AMP expenses would be ‘NIL or at best would mean the amount or compensation