← All Phrases

“AMP expenditure”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C149 judgments

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

Leading authorities on AMP expenditure

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.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

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.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT
131
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

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
39
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.

381 ITR 154; Bausch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT
283 CTR 322 · 2016 · High Court
22
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that expenditure on Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) by a taxpayer is not an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, adjustments for AMP expenses in transfer pricing cannot be made without specific statutory provisions.

Judgments citing AMP expenditure

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2035/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that ... brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable compensation from the AE. The ld TPO for applying bright line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP

DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1267/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that ... brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable compensation from the AE. The ld TPO for applying bright line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 9000/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that ... brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable compensation from the AE. The ld TPO for applying bright line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

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

ITA 7424/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that ... brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable compensation from the AE. The ld TPO for applying bright line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

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

ITA 6838/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that ... brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable compensation from the AE. The ld TPO for applying bright line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP

M/S Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 991/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that ... brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable compensation from the AE. The ld TPO for applying bright line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

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

ITA 1969/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

AMP expenses as an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act. For this purposes, he undertook benchmarking analysis of AMP expenditure applied Bright Line Test by comparing ratio of AMP expenditure to the sales of the assessee with that of the comparable companies and held that ... brand/ trade name owned by the AE, requiring suitable compensation from the AE. The ld TPO for applying bright line test compared AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee as percentage of total turnover @9.56% with average AMP expenses of of 3.69% of various comparable companies. The TPO concluded that AMP

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai, Ayakar Bhawan vs. Samsonite South Asia Pvt Ltd, Andheri

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4278/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 3(1)(1) 402/Ackruti Star, Midc, 607, Ayakar Bhawan, M.K. Andheri East, Vs. Road, Mumbai – 400093 Mumbai - 400020 (Pan: Aaacs8598L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Jitendra Singh, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1075686655(1), Dated 21.04.2025, Passed Against The Order By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(3), Mumbai U/S.143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.03.2014, For Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Correct In Allowing The Entire Amount Of Rs.7,32,38,757/- Incurred By The Assessee For Building Of ‘Samsonite’ Brand Without Appreciating The Fact That These Expenses Were Incurred Towards Creating Intangible Rights In Its Favour Which Are Capable Of Giving Enduring Benefits To The Assessee Company & Hence Are Assignable Over A Number Of Year?

For Appellant: Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

conjectures. Learned counsel submitted that assessing officer has not at all made any case that assessee's expenditure are in the nature of AMP expenditure aimed at benefiting the foreign associated enterprise. Learned counsel submitted that the brand belongs the AE and not to the assessee and hence there cannot

ACIT, Spl. Range-9, New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 7598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in applying a markup on the alleged excessive AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant and further erred in upholding the order of the AO/ TPO in adopting an inappropriate set of comparable companies for computing the mark

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

facts and circumstances of this case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in applying a markup on the alleged excessive AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant and further erred in upholding the order of the AO/ TPO in adopting an inappropriate set of comparable companies for computing the mark

Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2969/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 92C

impugned transactions"). 3. The learned CIT(A)/AO/TPO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in holding that the AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant in India, being payments made to third parties, can be characterized as an international transaction' as per the provisions ... principles laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various tribunal decisions in letter and spirit, thereby proceeding to make separate adjustments towards AMP expenditure by reference to the very same comparables used for benchmarking other international transaction of import of finished goods. Thus, this duplicative approach that

Loreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 25 to 35 including 27(a) are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6623/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 928Section 92C

finding has stated that grounds pertaining to the international transaction in the nature of provision of brand promotion service. AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee was a recurring issue which was there in the earlier years where the DRP in those cases have rejected the objections raised by the assessee.The ... reason that they were not functionally comparable to the business of the assessee. Further, the ld.DRP held that the international transaction is not merely AMP expenditure but was benefiting the AEs in the form of promotion and brand value of the AE brands. The ld. DRP also stated that

Bmw India Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2024/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Bmw India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Oberoi Centre Of Income Tax, Circle (1), Building No. 11, Dlf Cyber Hsiidc Building, Vanijya City Dlf Phase, Gurgaon, Nikunj Udhyog Vihar, Haryuana, 122001 Phase-5, Gurgaon, Pan: Aabcb7140C Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha-Adv, Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv& Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)-Gurgaon, Dated 28/06/2022 U/S254R.W. Section 143(3)/144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short).

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254Section 254rSection 92C

short), pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12,wherein the A.O. made addition/adjustments on account of advertisement, marketing and promotion (AMP) expenditure,income of the Assessee has been enhanced by Rs. 1,71,32,019/- by holding thattransaction pertaining to receipt of information technology support services does not satisfy ... ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 25/01/2019, set aside the Final Assessment Order by deleting the adjustment made with regard to AMP Expenditure and remanded the adjustment of Rs. 1,71,32,019/- qua receipt of information technology support services and disallowance

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee had specifically submitted that there is no arrangement or agreement with the overseas A.E. for incurring AMP expenditure. It is also apparent the expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred for marketing assessee"s own products and the payment was made to third ... Transfer Pricing Officer ignoring the submissions made by the assessee had assumed that a benefit has accrued to the overseas A.E. on account of AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjustment / addition proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer simply relying upon his order

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 2052/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 1688/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

ITA 9080/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3190/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalcarlsberg India Private Limited, Dy. Cit, 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Circle-5(2), Commercial Complex,D-4, Saket, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) (Assessment Year 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Carlsberg India Private Circle-5(2), Limited, New Delhi. Vs. 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca & Shri Paras Sharma, Ar & Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

appellant submitted vide reply dated 18.09.2017 that if the method, as agreed in the APA for determination of arm's length price of the AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant, is applied to the subject years under appeal, the results shall be as under: Years Value of adjustment made ... AMP expenditure Reduction in TPO on account of AMP issue disallowed if APA adjustment (A) approach is followed if APA (B) approach is followed

Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3150/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalcarlsberg India Private Limited, Dy. Cit, 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Circle-5(2), Commercial Complex,D-4, Saket, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) (Assessment Year 2010-11 Dy. Cit, Carlsberg India Private Circle-5(2), Limited, New Delhi. Vs. 4Th Floor, Rectangle No.1, Commercial Complex, D-4, Saket, New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aajcs8454J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca & Shri Paras Sharma, Ar & Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

appellant submitted vide reply dated 18.09.2017 that if the method, as agreed in the APA for determination of arm's length price of the AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant, is applied to the subject years under appeal, the results shall be as under: Years Value of adjustment made ... AMP expenditure Reduction in TPO on account of AMP issue disallowed if APA adjustment (A) approach is followed if APA (B) approach is followed

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

Ground 9 - Transfer pricing (`TP') adjustment of Rs.19,18,64,661 relating to alleged excessive advertisement, marketing and promotional ('AMP') expenditure 9.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT and Hon'ble DRP erred in confirming the upward adjustment ... economic characterization of the Appellant as a normal risk bearing distributor and failing to appreciate that no separate compensation is required for the alleged AMP expenditure, when the Appellant has achieved more than arm's length return for the distribution activity; 9.4 Without prejudice to the above, on facts