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 | PPE Safety Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
« Transfer Pricing »
 Key Highlights Of The 2nd Edition Of KSA Transfer Pricing Guidelines
 ITAT deletes Penalty since Assessee applied Transfer Pricing Provisions with Good faith and Due Diligence
 Change in transfer pricing regulations to help MNCs
 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

Transfer Pricing adjustment for excessive marketing expenses taking a twist in India
June, 24th 2017

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a recent ruling in the case of Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 344/Del/2017) has given a new dimension to the issue of excessive spend on Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion expenses (AMP) in India. The Tribunal has scanned the relatively new approach adopted by the Tax Authorities of making an “AMP intensity adjustment” to factor in the “marketing function” and brand value creation done by the Indian distributors on behalf of its Associated Enterprises (AE) who is the brand owner, as an alternative to applying the bright line test.

The facts and observations of the case are discussed below:

Facts of the case

  • The taxpayer is a part of Luxottica group which is into design, manufacture and distribution of sunglasses and prescription frames in mid and premium price categories.  
  • The taxpayer is engaged in trading and distribution of the group products in India. 
  • For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, with respect to the international transaction pertaining to its trading activity viz import of finished goods, the taxpayer has applied Resale Price Method (RPM) for benchmarking purposes. Notably, the taxpayer has incurred a significant AMP expenditure in proportion to its sales revenue.
  • The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) evaluated the significant AMP expenditure incurred by the taxpayer and opined that the excessive promotional efforts or expenditure incurred by the taxpayer was in essence ‘marketing function’ carried out by the taxpayer on behalf of its AE and it enhanced the value of ‘Luxottica’ brand owned by its AE. 
  • The TPO analysed the need to make an adjustment to the operating margins of comparable companies vis-à-vis the taxpayer to factor in the difference in the intensities of AMP expenditure of the comparable companies. Based on the same, the TPO carried out an ‘AMP intensity adjustment’ to operating margin of comparable companies by considering the difference in the percentage of AMP to sales (intensity of AMP) of the taxpayer and the comparable companies. While doing so the TPO considered the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of import of finished goods. 
  • In effect, transfer pricing adjustment was proposed post comparing the profit margin of the taxpayer and the AMP intensity adjusted margins of comparable companies. 

The Tribunal’s ruling 
In response to the appeal filed by the taxpayer against the computation of transfer pricing adjustment, the Delhi Tribunal has decided the appeal principally in favour of the Revenue. The Key observations of the Tribunal’s ruling are as below:

  • While the taxpayer did not challenge the ‘AMP intensity adjustment’ made by the TPO before the Tribunal, the Tribunal in its order reaffirmed the approach adopted by the TPO of treating AMP as a function in view of the similar observations of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in case of Bausch & Lomb Eyecare India Pvt Ltd and Ors vs Addl CIT and Ors and Sony Ericson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt Ltd vs CIT. 
  • In response to the taxpayer’s contention that the TPO had rejected RPM and applied TNMM as the most appropriate method, the Tribunal, in the light of the facts presented, observed that the TPO had not considered the excessive AMP expenditure as a ‘separate international transaction’ and adopted an alternative approach of considering the AMP expenses to be embedded in the primary international transaction i.e. import of finished goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the fact that “If, however, it turns out that such an adjustment cannot be done due to one reason or the other, then the RPM should be discarded and another suitable method be adopted, which encompasses the effect of AMP intensity adjustment.”
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us | PPE Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting