“AMP expenditure”

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 206/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Epson India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy 12Th Floor, The Milenia, Commissioner Of Tower A, Income Tax, No. 1,Murphy Road, Circle 2 (1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. Pan: Aaace7858F Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 25/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1. The Orders Passed By Learned Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income- Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred As "Ao" For Brevity), Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tp) — 1(2)(1), Bangalore (Hereinafter Referred As "Tpo" For Brevity) & The Honourable Drp-1

action of the TPO/ AO of segregating the AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant into routine and non-routine and observing that non-routine AMP expenditure is towards Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation ("DEMPE") functions requiring compensation from AE without placing any evidence on record to demonstrate that there ... also rejected the Working Capital Adjustment to the assessee. Thus the total adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO under 92CA are as under: Particulars Amount AMP Expenditure Rs. 33,95,60,000/- Business Support Rs. 20,54,912/- Services Total Adjustment u/s Rs. 34,16,14,912/- 92CA 2.10 On receipt

M/S. Himalaya Wellness Company (Formerly Known As the Himalaya Drug Company), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

required to be made under Rule 10B(1)(c)(iii), for the differences in respect of administrative, selling and distribution expenses, marketing functions, AMP expenditure, freight expenses, bad debt risk, market risk, financial risk, investment risk, foreign exchange fluctuation risk, debt risk and inventory risk which materially affect the gross ... profit mark-up in the open market. 10 As regards adjustment on account of alleged advertisement and marketing promotion (AMP) expenditure: 10.1 The Officers below erred in ignoring the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order in the Appellant’s own case

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

following adjustments: Amount (In INR) Particulars Adjustment to the manufacturing segment 13,52,88,149 123,25,95,287 Adjustment on account of excess AMP expenditure Assessed Income 136,78,83,436 3. The AO, taking note of the above, concluded the assessment proceedings as per the provisions of section ... allowed. In view of the above conclusion, the other grounds 7 do not require any adjudication. TP adjustment of AMP expenditure pertaining to trading segment – Grounds 11 to 33. 12. The assessee through these grounds is contending the treatment of alleged excess AMP expenditure pertaining to trading segment

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

proposed, the losses incurred would reduce to that extent. IT(TP)A No.202/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 38 The adjustment proposed on the issue of AMP Expenditure in the immediate preceeding assessment year has been upheld by the ld. DRP.” 6. The assessee filed objections u/s.144C of the Act before

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 219/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade The Deputy Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, High Income Tax, Grounds Sampangi Rama Circle-2 (1)(1), Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed By The Ld.Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Essilor India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Eipl" Or The "Company" Or The "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer

above grounds, the learned AO/ TPO/ DRP has erred in law and in fact, by not appreciating that even if the incurrence of excess AMP expenditure is considered as cost, the net margin of the Appellant at 5.86% on operating revenue computed by the TPO based on TNMM is higher ... operating margin of the Appellant is higher that the operating margins of the comparable companies, thus no separate adjustment for AMP expenditure is required. 12. The learned AO/ TPO/ DRP has erred, in law and in fact, by making a TP adjustment after applying a markup, Page

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

Support Services transaction entered by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprises ("AE"); Grounds relating to adjustment on account of alleged excessive AMP expenditure 3. The learned AO / TPO and the learned DRP have erred, in law and in facts, by concluding that the Appellant has incurred excessive or extraordinary AMP ... facts. by arbitrarily considering 25% of the distributor's commission as incurred towards warehousing facilities and treating the balance as part of AMP expenditure: 7. The learned AO I TPO and the learned DRP have erred, in law and in facts. by considering -distributor's commission'', "sales promotion expenses

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

matter was referred to TPO to determine the ALP of international transaction. The TPO wide order dated 28.10.2019 treated the Advertising, Marketing and Promotional (AMP) expenditure incurred by the assessee as a separate international transaction and calculated average AMP expenses on sales of comparables at 1.53%. The TPO concluded that ... when TNMM method is applied to benchmark the entire international transactions, then there is no requirement of making separate TP adjustment on account of AMP expenditure. In the earlier paragraphs, we have also held that TNMM as most appropriate method and has also held that the international transaction of Exports

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

with rule 10D of the Rules. 3. TP adjustment in relation to Advertising, Marketing and Promotion expenditure of INR 82,05,25,509 3.1 AMP expenditure not an international transaction 3.1.1 The Hon’ble DRP and learned AO / TPO have erred in law and on facts by alleging that ... unilateral Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (“AMP”) expenditure, being payments made to third parties, is an "international transaction" as per the provisions of section 92B of the Act, without appreciating that they had not incurred any expenditure on the directions of the AE. 3.1.2 The Hon’ble DRP and learned

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

NeAC erred in upholding the same. 9.2. The learned TPO/ learned JAO erred on facts and in law, in holding AMP expenditure of the Appellant as an international transaction under section 92B of the Act and assuming jurisdiction to determine the arm's length price thereof, when such expenditure represents