“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

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

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

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

circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant is the sole beneficiary of the AMP expenditure incurred by it and the benefit to the AEs, if any, is only incidental. Hence, bearing the cost of such expenditure was consistent with ... appellant being a full-fledged manufacturer undertaking all the functions and bearing all the risks, is justified in incurring and bearing the cost of AMP expenditure. 3(g) That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating that application

Practo Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153

treated as revenue expense and on the balance amount, depreciation under section 32 of the Act ought to be allowed.; and 14.2.2. Treating balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747 as capital in nature even though it was incurred for the purpose of day-to-day business operations ... within the 20% threshold adopted by Learned AO making the said adjustment. The Learned AO has erred in not appreciating that balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747 is therefore allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Act. (Tax effect: INR 1,18,33,405) 15. Levy of interest

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 incurred by the Appellant. 10.2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in holding AMP expenditure as a separate international transaction between the Appellant and AEs under Section 92B of the Act, without appreciating the functional profile of the Appellant ... inter-alia directing the Hon’ble Tribunal to decide the issues pertaining to transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment an Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP’) expenditure. 25"March 2019 Interim Order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal calling for a remand report from the TPO w.r.t

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)

incurred by the Appellant. 10. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO/AO/DRP erred in holding AMP expenditure as a separate international transaction between the Appellant and AEs under Section 92B of the Act, without appreciating the functional profile of the Appellant ... inter-alia directing the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the issues pertaining to transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment an Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP') expenditure. 25th March 2019 Interim Order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal calling for a remand report from the TPO w.r.t

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)

international why the impugned transaction should not be considered as international why the impugned transaction should not be considered as international transaction and that AMP expenditure incurred on behalf of the AE ought transaction and that AMP expenditure incurred on behalf of the AE ought transaction and that AMP expenditure ... case, admittedly, the assessee has incurred the cost of AMP for the benef the cost of AMP for the benefits of its AE accordingly AMP expenditure is an its of its AE accordingly AMP expenditure is an International transaction under section 92B(1) of the Act. International transaction under section

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)

extension of BLT for the purpose of benchmarking, the AMP expense incurred by the Assessee to determine the reimbursement of alleged non-routine AMP expenditure to be recovered from AE. 4 Adjustment proposed on Protective basis The Ld. TPO proposed an adjustment amounting ... 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 its objections before the DRP which rejected the contentions of the Assessee and accordingly order giving effect to directions

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

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

facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was right in law in observing that the benefit to the AE due to AMP expenditure is only incidental and not intentional? (f) Whether in the facts and in law, the CIT(A) was right in law in observing that ... company, therefore, marginal part of such expenses were for the benefit of brand through which the AE was benefited and therefore, the AMP expenditure are international transaction. Thereafter, the TPO has applied TNM Method and worked out the adjustment on account of AMP expenses at Rs.3

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

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2444/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.2442 To 2445/Del/2023 (Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2016-17) Dcit, Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., Cc-20, Delhi. Room No.269A, 2 Nd Floor, Ara Vs. Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055. Pan-Aaacl0198F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. & Shri Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr & Ms. Pooja Swroop, Cit-Dr 29.09.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Five Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. All Are Dated 12.06.2023 For Assessment Years As Tabulated As Under:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

DCIT vs. Lotus Hearbals Pvt. Ltd. (b) It is not disputed by AO that to build a brand image, any company has to incur AMP expenditure (refer para 12.1); (c) The entire AMP Expenses incurred by the assessee were undisputedly wholly and exclusively incurred for assessee business aspect has been ... owns the brand "LOTUS". LHCC and KC sell their products to the assessee only and do not make any sales to third parties, no AMP expenditure is required to be incurred by the said entities. The assessee owns the brand "LOTUS and thus, AMP expenses are incurred by the assessee

Cosmic Informatics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle - 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in appeal No

ITA 2443/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

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

Page 1 ITA No. 4577/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP

Amazon Development Centre (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp), Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 795/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 263

Delivery and warranty charges being in the nature of AMP expenses: “28. The TPO proposed therein to make TP adjustments on excess amount of AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee for brand promotion and on the markup on such AMP expenses. The assessee filed its reply to the said showcause ... cost, depreciation and amortisation in the Operating Expense base computation along with correct segmental allocation thereof and (b) Delivery charges and warranty expenses in AMP expenditure computation along with correct segmental allocation thereof. The TPO is directed to pass the order for AY 2018-19on the same by carrying

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp), Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 762/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 263

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

reimbursement only part of such expenses. The TPO analysed the whole agreement and the transactions entered by the assessee with its AE 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 ... length test, it was erroneous to conclude that the Appellant had performed any non-routine function or had incurred non-routine AMP expenditure. 9. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP erred in applying the ‘bright line method’ to determine the excessive/non- routine AMP expenses

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

order on 20/11/2019. The final adjustments and additions made by the AO following the issuance of directions of the DRP are as under: (a) AMP expenditure incurred in manufacturing, trading and networking segments of the assessee - on substantive basis by applying the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) and on protective ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP/AO/TPO have erred in holding that the AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant in India is an ‘international transaction’ as per the provisions of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case (supra). 8.1 As regards AMP expenditure, the ITAT in the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2022 (supra) has held as under :- “10. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused ... context of application of BLT. We find force in the submissions of the assessee. Considering the overall approach for making adjustment on account of AMP expenditure, we note that the Ld. TPO has only undertaken an adjustment by application of BLT. There is no agreement, understanding or arrangement between

ACIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7440/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in observing that the benefit to the AE due to AMP expenditure is only incidental and not international? 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

comparables. Adjustment of INR 35,67,86,587 towards selling, marketing and distribution expense incurred by the Appellant (treated as AMP expenditure) 17. erred in considering the selling and marketing expenditure of INR 71,94,28,537 incurred by the Appellant during the year under consideration , towards value added functions ... erred in defying the DRP directions by considering comparables relating to manufacturing segment instead of trading segment for the purpose of determining the excess AMP expenditure incurred by the Appellant; 24. without prejudice to the above, the Ld. TPO should have considered IT(TP)A No.284/Bang/2021 M/s. AstraZeneca Pharma India

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

consulting charges and People Survey charges 4,14,86,237/- 4 Under recovery of salary expenses from AE 93,12,637/- 5 Excessive AMP expenditure 22,01,14,350/- Total 36,38,25,151/- 3.1. On 31/03/2015, the Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with