M/s. Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., 805-808, vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1),
Time Tower, M.G. Road, Gurgaon. New Delhi.
PAN – AAACB3944R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ORDER
“24. We have perused the arguments advanced by both the parties in the
light of the written submissions and records placed before us. Ld. Counsel
for the assessee has tried to fortify his argument that there was no
international transaction on account of AMP expenses by relying on the
judgment of Hon high Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki
(supra) and the other judgments reproduced hereinabove. On perusal of
ITA No. 1197/Del/2016 2
the order passed by Ld. TPO, it is observed that he did not have benefit of
judicial precedents now available, while dealing with the issue of AMP
expenses. In some of these decisions AMP expenses has been held to be an
international transaction and in some others as not, while in some others
the matter has been restored for fresh consideration to be decided in the
light of the decision of Sony Ericson (supra) where there is an acceptance
on behalf of the assessee regarding the AMP expenses being an
international transaction. Under such circumstances it would be in the
interest of natural justice just and proper, if the impugned issue is set
aside to Ld.TPO, for fresh consideration of the question, as to whether
there exists an international transaction of AMP expenses.
25. If the existence of international transaction is not proved the matter
would end their and no transfer pricing addition would be called for. On
the other hand if the international transaction is found to be existing, then
the Ld.TPO determined the ALP of such international transaction as per
law in the light of the relevant decisions of orderable High Court by
allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In doing
so, care should be taken to correctly classify the nature of expenditure and
exclude selling expenses directly incurred in connection with sales, not
leading to brand promotion, within the ambit of AMP expenses. At this
point we make it clear that BLT have been rejected by Hon high Delhi
High Court in the case of Sony Ericson (supra) for determining if there
exist international transaction for AMP expenses.”
The second issue pertaining to disallowance of interest was decided by the
Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, the
assessee challenged the order of Tribunal on the first issue regarding AMP
expenses before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, and the Hon’ble High Court
admitted the appeal of the assessee on the following substantial question of
law :
“Whether the ITAT ought to have itself dealt with the issue concerning the
existence of the international transaction concerning the advertisement
marketing and promotion (AMP) expenses and the determination of the
arm’s length price thereof instead of remanding the issues to the Transfer
Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) for a fresh consideration?”
ITA No. 1197/Del/2016 3
The Hon’ble High Court, referring two of its decisions in the cases of Sony
Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 374 ITR 118
(Del) and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT, (2016) 381 ITR 117, has remitted
the case back to the file of Tribunal vide order dated 24.05.2017 with the
following directions :
“5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that
the ase before the ITAT was argued at length and the views of the TPO as
well as the Dispute Resolution Penel (‘DRP) were already available to the
ITAT. Arguments were advanced on the strength of judgment of this court
in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Del) as well as a string of subsequent
judgments beginning with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 381 ITR
117.
7. In the present case, all the facts necessary for the ITAT to form an
opinion on the issues before it concerning the AMP expenditure were
already before it. In the circumstances, the remand to the TPO of the
entire matter for a decision afresh appears to be unwarranted.
1.3 Ground 3: Without prejudice, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned AO/TPO
has grossly erred in treating the Appellant as 'Distributor' and
completely ignoring the facts that it (i.e. the Appellant) is in fact a full-
risk bearing licensed manufacturer engaged in manufacture and sale of
alcoholic beverages under the trade names licensed by its AEs.
1.4 Ground 4: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
Hon'ble DRP and Learned AO/TPO have grossly erred in computing arm's
length price of the Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion expense
incurred by the Appellant in India, without appreciating that the
methodology adopted by the Hon'ble DRP and the Learned AO/TPO does
not entail proper and correct "application" of any conclusive method as
prescribed under Rule 1 OB of the Rules.
ITA No. 1197/Del/2016 5
1.5 Ground 5: Without prejudice, the Hon'ble DRP and Learned AO/TPO
have erred in not giving due cognizance to the various decision of higher
courts (on the issue involving creating of marketing intangibles) which
clearly requires exclusion of all non-brand related expenses (i.e. point of
sales expenses, which are in the nature of rebates and discounts, selling
expenses, sales commission, etc.) for the purpose of computing AMP
expenses.
1.6 Ground 6: Without prejudice, the Learned AO/TPO has erred in not
giving appropriate relief as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP
and have subjectively proceeded to determine taxable income of the
Appellant based on transfer pricing addition originally calculated using
the Bright line test.
1.7 Ground 7: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble DRP
and Learned AO/TPO have erred in misinterpreting the international
guidance, various tax court rulings & judicial pronouncements on the
subject. The Learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP has taken an extremely prejudicial
stand without appreciating the facts & circumstances applicable to the
Appellant's instant case.
1.8 Ground 8: Without prejudice, the Learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred
in not giving due cognizance to the fact that the Appellant has not paid
'any' royalty to its AE for use of Bacardi® brand during the year. The
Learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP has erred in not giving any credence to the
guidance provided on this aspect by the Hon'ble special bench in case of
M/s L.G. Electronics India Private Limited and thereby failed to allow an
adjustment on this accord.
3. The brief facts, as narrated by the Tribunal in its earlier order dated
09.12.2016 are not disputed between the parties. We, therefore, need not to
re-write the same in order to avoid repetition for the sake of brevity.
4. The ld. AR of the assessee, apart from making oral arguments, has also
filed a written synopsis on the issue under consideration, which reads as
under :
It was further submitted that consequent to order in ITA 417 /2017 filed
before Hon'ble High court of Delhi (kindly refer paras 7 & 8), the present
appeal is restored back to the file of Hon'ble Tribunal for decision on
merits in accordance with law.
Copies of above decisions were handed over during the hearing for kind
consideration.
58.82 crores (kindly refer internal page 3 of TP order para 4.4) can be
said to be towards an international transaction. In this context reference
was made to para 2 and 3 of TP order, wherein business profile of
appellant and details of international transactions are mentioned. It may
be useful to point out the conclusion at internal page 77 of TP order,
wherein Ld.TPO has categorically recorded that except adjustments
indicated therein towards AMP an interest paid on of FCD's "no adverse
inference is drawn in respect of the other international transactions
undertaken by taxpayers during FY 10-11".
kind attention is invited to the detailed order of Ld. DRP. Kind attention
was invited to internal page 6 paragraph five, wherein the panel clearly
indicated that it has considered all the facts as also the judicial decisions
of Hon. Delhi High Court. It was submitted that the conclusion of Ld. DRP
at para 5.2 on internal page 7 that "this issue is no longer res integra as
the Hon'ble High Court in Sony Ericsson have held that this is an
international transaction" amounts to complete misinterpretation of the
ITA No. 1197/Del/2016 9
Attention was also invited to recent decisions of Bench 1-2, New Delhi in
ITA no 4978/DEL/2011 and 6410/Del/2012, wherein at paragraphs 12
and 13 & paragraph 13 and 47 respectively of those decisions, this Hon'ble
Tribunal found that AMP expenditure incurred for business in India would
not be said to be for the benefit of or on behalf of the overseas AE.
5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below
and also reiterated the submissions made at earlier occasion. He further
submitted that even in the second round of proceedings, the assessee did not
ITA No. 1197/Del/2016 11
produce the copy of agreement except in Tradall S.A., from whom the assessee
had received reimbursements and the copy of financial statements and copy
of ledger accounts of reimbursements have not been produced by the
assessee. Therefore, the lower authorities were justified in making additions
as AMP expenses.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the entire
material available on record including the orders of the authorities below as
well as the case laws cited by the assessee and earlier order of Tribunal dated
09.12.2016. As directed by Hon’ble High Court, remanding of the issue back to
the file of TPO instead of examining the same itself by the Tribunal, was not
justified particularly when extensive arguments were made by assessee on
the strength of decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Sony
Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and Maruti
Suzuki India Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). In the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile
Communication India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Court has held as under :
“52. The contention that AMP expenses are not international transactions
has to be rejected. There seems to be an incongruity in the submission of
the assessee on the said aspect for the simple reason that in most cases the
assessed have submitted that the international transactions between
them and the AE, resident abroad included the cost/value of the AMP
expenses, which the assessee had incurred in India. In other words, when
the assessee raise the aforesaid argument, they accept that the declared
price of the international transaction included the said element or
function of AMP expenses, for which they stand duly compensated in their
margins or the arm's length price as computed.
In the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), it has been held as follows :
Held :
Revenue has failed to demonstrate the existence of an international
transaction only on account of the quantum of AMP expenditure by MSIL.
Secondly, the Court is of the view that the decision in Sony Ericsson
holding that there is an international transaction as a result of the AMP
expenses cannot be held to have answered the issue as far as the present
Assessee MSIL is concerned since finding in Sony Ericsson to the above
effect is in the context of those Assessees whose cases have been disposed
of by that judgment and who did not dispute the existence of an
international transaction regarding AMP expenses.
(para 51)
Court in Sony Ericsson proceeded on the basis that the decision of this
Court in the writ petition by MSIL was not a binding precedent. Be that as
it may, there are other reasons why the earlier decision in the writ petition
filed by MSIL cannot be held to survive. A careful reading of the judgment
of the Supreme Court reveals that the Supreme Court asked the TPO to
proceed with the matter in accordance with law “uninfluenced by the
observations/directions given by the judgment in the impugned order
dated July 1, 2010.” That virtually nullifies the judgment of the High Court
on all aspects. A further reason is that even this Court in disposing of the
writ petition of MSIL proceeded on the basis of there being an
international transaction only on account of the excessive AMP expenses
incurred by MSIL. In other words, this Court disposing of MSIL's writ
petition also applied the BLT to determine the existence of an
ITA No. 1197/Del/2016 13
for Rs.11,32,64,636/-. Thus, based on the order u/s 92CA(3), the Assessing
Officer had passed order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C making addition
of Rs. 11,32,64,636/-.
8. From the record, it reveals that during the year the assessee has
incurred following international transaction:-
9. The contention of the assessee has been that the AMP expenses
incurred by assessee is solely for its own business and relied on the decision
of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Good Year India Ltd. (ITA No. 5650/Del/2011,
6240/Del/2012 & 916/Del/2014) for the proposition that AMP expenditure
incurred is not an international transaction.
13. The TPO has reproduced in his order u/s 92 CA(3) the content of its
website (Page-247 & 248 of Paper Book) to support that the assessee is brand
building of Bacardi products owned by its AE. The TPO has further abstracted
the contents of economic times (Page 253 of Paper Book) and Bacardi Global
marketing principles as per its website (page 257 of Paper Book) to prove
that the assessee is performing marketing function leading to brand
building/marketing intangibles of AE. In view of the above, we find that there
exists an action in concert in respect of AMP function performed by the
assessee for creating marketing intangibles of AE u/s 92F(v) of IT Act in
respect of AMP function.
14. It may be mentioned here that reliance on the decision of ITAT in the
case of Goodyear is not proper as that decision is distinguishable on facts as in
that case, there was purely manufacture whereas in present case there is
distribution as well as manufacturing of products bearing AE’s brand and the
assessee has failed to adduce any evidence such as agreement, copy of ledger
account etc. The other decisions relied by the assessee including the decision
in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) too stand on different footings
and are distinguishable in the peculiar facts of the present case.
ITA No. 1197/Del/2016 18
15. In view of the above facts, it is held that AMP functions performed by
the assessee is an international transaction and bench-marking should be
done in the light of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the
case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015)
374 ITR 118 (Del). Therefore, AO/TPO is directed to determine the ALP of
international transaction and calculate adjustment accordingly.
Dated: 27.03.2019
*aks*
Copy of order forwarded to:
(1) The appellant (2) The respondent
(3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Delhi Benches, New Delhi