International Tax, Law & Society

Advertisement, Marketing and promotion expenses: Requirement to benchmark these expenses

Case:Xerox India Ltd vs. Dy. CIT, Delhi ITAT

Case Outcome: Remand

Facts

  • During the year under consideration, the Assessee had incurred expenditure on Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) which in the view of Assessing Officer had created market intangibles including brand value in favour of Associated Enterprises and thus, being an international transaction same was needed to be benchmarked.

Key Points

  • The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision in Assessee’s own case, wherein further reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Valvoline Cummins (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. It was held that mere use of brand name or logo owned by the Associated Enterprises by the assessee will not automatically lead to influence that any expenses that the assessee incurred towards AMP was only to enhance the brand.
  • It was observed that the bright line test was not an appropriate yardstick for determining the existence of an international transaction or for that matter for calculating the Arm’s Length Price of such transaction.
  • Therefore, following the same in the present facts of the case, adjustment made on account of AMP transaction was to be deleted.
  • Issue Outcome – In favour of Assessee

If you can’t access links on this page, create a Riverus account. Not only can you access information seamlessly, you get access to the complete legislation and all reported and unreported income tax case laws. Moreover you do not pay to create the account. For premium content, you can make in-app purchases.


Share your thoughts using the comment section below

%d bloggers like this: