Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: cpt :: empanelment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International
 Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 International Taxation Vs. Virage Logic International India
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. Moderate Leasing And Capital Services Pvt. Ltd.
 ITO vs. Vikram A. Pradhan (ITAT Mumbai)

Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd. 214-221, Ansal Tower, 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Vs. Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd. 214-221, Ansal Tower, 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
August, 29th 2014
       IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             DELHI BENCH `I', NEW DELHI
 Before Sh. R. S. Syal, AM And Sh. George George K., JM
            ITA No. 2800/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09
            ITA No. 6368/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10
Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd.    Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-
214-221, Ansal Tower, 38, Nehru           tax, Circle-8(1), Central Revenue
Place, New Delhi-110019                   Building,
                                          New Delhi-110002
(APPELLANT)                               (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAECS2980A
     Assessee by : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv. & Saurabh Srivastava, CA
     Revenue by : Sh.Peeyush Jain & Yogesh K. Verma, CIT DRs

Date of Hearing : 26.8.2014            Date of Pronouncement : 28.8.2014

                                      ORDER

Per R. S. Syal, AM:
      These two appeals by the assessee relating to the assessment years
2008-09 and 2009-10 involve common issue. We are, therefore,
proceeding to disposed them off by this consolidated order for the sake
of convenience.

Assessment Year 2008-09
2.    The assessee is aggrieved only against the inclusion of certain
expenses in the overall base of advertising, marketing and promotion
(AMP) expenses for the purposes of making Transfer Pricing
                                    2                ITA No. 2800 & 6368/Del/2013
                                                  Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd.

adjustment. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the
Assessing Officer erred in including certain selling expenses within the
ambit of AMP expenses for computing the ALP of the transaction by
applying the bright line test. It was contended that out of total such
expenses, the A.O excluded only `Liquidated damages claimed by
customers' from the AMP expenses. When the assessment order was
assailed before the ld. CIT(A), he, after considering the Special Bench
order in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2013) 140
ITD 41 (Delhi) (SB), directed to exclude Installation commission and
Employees sales incentive from the overall base of AMP expenses. The
ld. AR argued that several sales expenses have been included in the
AMP expenses, which merit exclusion. In the opposition, the ld. DR
relied on the impugned order.

3.   We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant
material on record. The scope of AMP expenses came up consideration
before the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
(supra). The Bench, after considering the arguments from both the sides,
held in para 18.3 to 18.6 of the order that AMP expenses are only such
expenses which are incurred for the promotion of sales which, in turn,
lead to brand building. The Bench noticed that the expenses which are
directly in connection with sales are only sales specific and hence cannot
be brought within the domain of AMP expenses. It was further observed
that the expenses which are not in the nature of advertisement,
                                     3                 ITA No. 2800 & 6368/Del/2013
 


                                                Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd.

marketing or promotion,       cannot help in creating           any marketing
intangibles or brand promotion for the foreign A.E. The Bench further
examined the erstwhile provisions of sec. 37(3A) and (3B) and held
them to be relevant in the correct interpretation of the scope of AMP
expenses. It was eventually held that the expenses in connection with the
sales which do not lead to brand promotion should not be brought within
the purview of AMP expenses for determining the cost/value of the
international transaction.

4.    Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is discernible that the
ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself by holding in para 7.5 of the impugned
order that the focus should be on "marketing intangibles" and not just
"brand promotion"      and in LG's case it was only `brand building'
expenditure which was relevant since the question was not on the
creation of marketing intangibles but on the building of brand LG. These
observations, which formed basis for the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue,
run contrary to the clear-cut mandate of       the Special Bench in LG
Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Under these circumstances, we are of
the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained on
this issue.

5.     It is vivid from the special bench decision that a distinction has
been made between sales specific expenses on one hand and the
expenses which are incurred for the promotion of sales on the other, so
                                    4                  ITA No. 2800 & 6368/Del/2013
                                                    Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd.

that only the latter can be considered within the purview of AMP
expenses. It is evident that the TPO simply applied the bright line test
for making the disallowance by including both the above segments of
expenses within the base of AMP expenses, which is not in consonance
with the ratio decidendi of the special bench decision in LG Electronics
India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The action of the AO was prompted because he
did not have the benefit of special bench decision at that time. As this
exercise can be carried out only after examining the correct nature of
each and every item of expense, we are of the considered opinion, that
the ends of justice would meet adequately, if the impugned order on this
issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO/TPO. We
order accordingly and direct him to decide this issue in the light of the
mandate of the special bench decision by excluding such expenses from
the base of AMP expenses which are directly in connection with sales
and are only sales specific. It is only thereafter that the amount of
disallowance on account of transfer pricing adjustment, if any, will be
determined.    Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed an
opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings.




Assessment Year 2009-10
6.   Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of
the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 are mutatis mutandis similar to
those for assessment year 2008-09. Following the view taken
hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the
                                               5                   ITA No. 2800 & 6368/Del/2013
                                                                Sharp Business Systems (India) Ltd.

file of A.O/TPO for deciding this issue afresh in accordance with our
above directions.

7.      In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/8/2014.



                     Sd/-                                                 Sd/-
       (George George K.)                                       (R. S. Syal)
      JUDICIAL MEMBER                                      ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 28/8/2014
*Subodh*

Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                        Date
                                                                Initial
1.     Draft dictated on                            26.8.2014                PS
2.     Draft placed before author                   27.8.2014                PS
3.     Draft proposed & placed before the second                             JM/AM
       member
4.     Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.                            JM/AM
5.     Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS                                  PS/PS
6.     Kept for pronouncement on                                             PS
7.     File sent to the Bench Clerk                                          PS
8.     Date on which file goes to the AR
9.     Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10.    Date of dispatch of Order.
*

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SEO Company Search Engine Optimization Company US SEO Local SEO Company Website SEO Company Alabama SEO Company Alaska SEO Company Arizona SEO Company Arkansas SEO Company California SEO Company Colorado SEO Company Connecticut SEO Company Delawa

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions