News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
« Transfer Pricing »
 National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited, New Delhi, Delhi
 Deals of the day-Mergers and acquisitions September 3, 2019
 Transfer pricing documentation due by year-end
 Transfer pricing amendments – a step towards certainty
 key international tax and transfer pricing developments
 Transfer pricing methodology of MNCs under customs department lens
 MNCs now won't have to file CbC report in Indiaa
 Citing Supreme Court’s Vodafone order, Bombay HC rejects transfer pricing adjustment
 General Insurance Corporation Of India, Mumbai, Maharashtra
 Air India Limited, Multi Location, Multi State
  Edcil India Limited, New Delhi

Indian transfer pricing case could signal new approach for advertising, promotional expense
June, 02nd 2017

Contrary to recent court decisions, the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has sanctioned a transfer pricing adjustment made by the Indian tax authority on account of advertisement, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses.

The 26 May decision, Luxottica India Eyewear, is surprising given that Indian tax tribunals and courts have been regularly reversing transfer pricing adjustments made by the tax authority on account of AMP expenses, concluding that AMP is not a separate international transaction and therefore need not to be benchmarked separately. A bright line test applied by revenue was also rejected by the courts, as this is not one of the prescribed methods in the Indian transfer pricing regulations.

In Luxottica, the taxpayer was engaged in the trading of sunglasses and frames without any value addition. The resale price method (RPM) was determined to be most appropriate method over the transactional net margin method. The transfer pricing officer examined the AMP expense of the tested party with reference to the AMP expense of the comparables. While making adjustments on account of excessive AMP expense, the officer treated AMP as a distinct function and made an adjustment on account of AMP intensity.

The transfer pricing officer computed the intensity of AMP expense incurred by the taxpayer by taking AMP expenditure of the taxpayer as a percentage of sales. Similar intensity of AMP expense of comparable companies was computed. The excessive expenditure on AMP was computed by comparing the intensity of AMP expense of the taxpayer with that of the comparables. The transfer pricing officer then carried out the AMP intensity adjustment in the profit margins of the comparables and not in the margin of the tested party.

The Tribunal determined that a distinction must be drawn between a function and a transaction and that every expenditure forming part of function cannot be construed as a transaction.

Since RPM was used as the most appropriate method, whether such AMP intensity adjustment can be made at the gross margin level was another question before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that if such adjustment cannot be made due to some reasons while applying RPM, then RPM should be discarded and another suitable method must be adopted.

Is this the beginning of a new era in Indian transfer pricing litigation where the concept of bright line has been reintroduced as AMP intensity test?

It is now for the courts to examine whether the concept of bright line can be rebranded.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting