PAPER ON LAW REFORMS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN … · 2018. 7. 29. · sections or rules within...

PAPER ON LAW REFORMS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN RELATION TO

MARKETING INTANGIBLES

(ADVERTISEMENT, MARKETING AND SALES PROMOTION)

1. Nitin Kondalwade Patil,

Deputy commissioner of Income Tax , Phd Scholar, Symbiosis International university,

SLS, Pune-411021

2. Dr.(Mrs.) Rupal Rautdesai,

Associate Professor, Symbiosis Law School, Symbiosis International University.

Viman Nagar, Pune - 411 014.

3. Dr.(Mrs.) Shashikala Gurpur,

Dean, Symbiosis Law School, Symbiosis International University.

Viman Nagar,Pune - 411 014.

Abstract

Advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure i.e. AMP commonly referred as issue of

marketing intangible has been on the top list of revenue authorities for scrutiny not only in India

but worldwide. In India, the issue has travelled through various Tribunals to the High court. Still

the same has not attained the required finality till date. The issue has been contested on various

debates involving issue of consideration of incurrence of AMP expenditure as an international

transaction, recovery of such expenses from associated enterprise, incurrence of AMP leading to

brand promotion or brand building for Multinational groups etc.

Now the issue has reached to the level where, to have clarity on the issue for taxpayers, the

action on law reform is important. It is not just required at the end of law makers by way of

guidance or clarity on various taxation aspects, but also in the mind-set of taxpayers, tax

consultants and tax authorities. Further, mere efforts from the tax law makers will not suffice.

All the stake holders need to be a part of such a law reform. Clarity on this issue will help in

improving barometer of ease of doing business in India which will provide objective criteria for

avoiding tax base erosion on this issue.

1. Introduction

1.1 MNC Companies and Tax avoidance through Transfer Pricing (‘TP’)

Most Multinational Groups (MNC Groups) aggressively engage in global strategic tax

planning, resulting in some “abusive tax avoidance.” A major type of abusive tax

avoidance is manipulation of transfer prices, which allows MNC Groups to shift income

from higher-tax countries to lower-tax countries. Transfer prices are the charges for

products, services, or technology transferred within an MNC Group. An MNC Group

consists of multiple Multinational Companies (MNC’s), which are related corporations

or similar entities operating in more than one country. Thus, any related- party

transaction within an MNC Group involves transfer prices. World trade is dominated by

related-party Transactions and related-party transactions within MNC Group worldwide

Nitin Kondalwade Patil, et al., Int. J.Eco.Res, 2018, V9 i3, 20 – 47 ISSN:2229-6158

IJER – May – June 2018 available online @ www.ijeronline.com

20

constitute over half of the total trade conducted by these MNCs1. This means that

transfer pricing plays a significant role in world trade.

Among the transfer pricing transactions of MNE Groups, intellectual property (IP)-

related transfer prices are the most significant and susceptible to manipulation. This is a

result of IP’s high value and mobility and the complexity of IP-related issues. IP carries

tremendous value because it often produces or has the potential to produce enormous

amounts of royalties. Given that IP is an intangible paper asset without physical

presence, it is easily transferable from one country to another. IP-related financial issues

exist in commercial practices, valuation, and accounting as well as in attribution of

income for tax purposes. These intricate financial issues are often complex and in a state

of flux. Consequently, tax avoidance through transfer pricing manipulation of IP is a

growing problem. The concept of analysis of Functions performed, Assets employed and

Risks assumed (‘FAR analysis’) is very important to determine the characterization of

transacting entities within the MNE Group, their relative contribution within the entire

value chain and to identify the entrepreneurial entity, which is entitled to the residual

profits within the value chain. Till recently, the world of TP was focusing upon the

contractual relationship amongst the parties and the aspect of risk presumed a higher

importance. This was more driven by the ‘form’ rather than ‘substance’, since the

allocation of risks within the entities of the MNE Group was possible to be artificially

manipulated. However, over a period of time, the Revenue authorities around the world

realized that the key aspect for evaluation of arm’s length nature of the transfer prices

within the MNE Group is the aspect of functions performed, since this reflected more of

substance within the arrangement, rather than form. This leads to a distinction between

legal owners of an intangible asset against the economic owner of the same.

The artificial allocation of risks and assets led to a situation of ‘economic double non-

taxation’, where neither the developing countries nor the developed countries could get

their fair share of taxes, since the profits within the value chain were parked at tax

heavens through the tax planning / avoidance measures. Given this, the developed as

well as developing countries approached the guiding authority on international taxation

and TP, i.e. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (‘OECD’)2. The

1The world’s 200 largest MNE Groups represent over one-fourth of the world’s GDP. See Sarah Anderson & John Cavanagh,

Corporate Empires, MULTINAT’L MONITOR, Dec. 1996, available at http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1296.08.html. 2 The OECD provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems. We work with governments to understand what drives economic, social and environmental



21

http://multinationalmonitor/

OECD formulated 15 action plans within its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (‘BEPS’)

project2, requiring guidance, out of which, 4 were dedicated to TP aspects.

These Action Plans provide a detailed guidance on the TP aspects and recognize the

substance aspects by providing guidance on the important aspects of intellectual

property by identifying important aspects around the same, such as Development,

Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation (‘DEMPE3’), which need to be

evaluated to identify the entity creating value within the Group and thus, the concept of

economic ownership assumes importance.

While the concept of economic ownership is technically valid and logical, it gives rise to

a very complex TP analysis, since, the tax aspects around the determination of economic

ownership and methodology of identifying the fair return for the economic owner are

not very clear.

1.2 Marketing Intangible Concept

One important TP issue which depends significantly upon the concept of economic

ownership is the issue of heavy Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP4’)

expenses incurred by a licensee entity within the Group, wherein, the allegation by the

Revenue Authorities is that these expenses are incurred for the promotion of brand

owned by the licensor entity within the Group, thereby, ‘implying’ a transaction of

service by the licensee to the licensor, requiring remuneration. Whereas, the licensee tax

payers have been claiming that they are the economic owners of the intangibles and

change. We measure productivity and global flows of trade and investment. We analyse and compare data to predict

future trends. We set international standards on a wide range of things, from agriculture and tax to the safety of

chemicals. http://www.oecd.org/about/ 2Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) refers to tax avoidance strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax

rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations. Under the inclusive framework, over 100 countries and

jurisdictions are collaborating to implement the BEPS measures and tackle BEPS. available at

http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/

3 The identity of the member or members of the multinational enterprise group performing functions related to the development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation of intangibles (DEMPE), therefore, is one key

consideration in determining prices for controlled transactions and in determining which entity or entities ultimately

will be entitled to returns derived by the multinational enterprise group from the exploitation of intangibles.

https://www.royaltyrange.com/home/royalty-rate-database/dempe and http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-

content/uploads/2016/10/12STM_CRP2_Att6_Intangibles.pdf

4 The issue of marketing marketing intangibles i.e. AMP first came up before Delhi High Court in case of f Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2010] 328 ITR 210.



22

http://www.oecd.org/about/http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/https://www.royaltyrange.com/home/royalty-rate-database/dempehttp://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/12STM_CRP2_Att6_Intangibles.pdfhttp://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/12STM_CRP2_Att6_Intangibles.pdf

hence the heavy AMP costs are incurred for their own benefit, which may accrue over a

period of time. This issue is commonly referred to as the marketing intangible issue,

since the TP aspects are dependent upon the marketing intangible of trade

name/trademark/brand name and a possible intangible arising out of the heavy AMP

expenses.

This paper intends to take a deeper dive into the issue of AMP and identify the need for

tax reforms within the Indian TP Regulations (‘ITPR5’).

While, there may not be a need to bring the tax reform through introduction of new

sections or rules within the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’6) or Income-tax Rules, 1962

(‘the Rules’7) respectively, but given the significant litigation around this topic within

India, there is clearly a need to provide substantive guidance to address the tax and TP

aspects of this issue.

2. A preliminary question – what is law reform?

Law reform is a difficult concept. Its precise meaning is elusive; it is susceptible to

different meanings in different contexts. Attempts to define law reform will often be

affected by underlying value judgments, including those relating to the institution who

should properly be concerned with the task. There is some circularity in seeking to

define law reform in order to identify the law reformers.

Is law reform simply the making of new law, or changes in the law, particularly in

response to certain triggers: reactions to “philosophical and moral developments, to new

social habits and patterns, to scientific and technological changes, means of doing

business and international obligations etc. If it is, then it includes developments inherent

in the ordinary course of legal interpretation and day-to-day application of the law by the

revenue authorities / courts. The mixed character of the Indian legal system allows for

the development of the law through doctrines of judicial precedent, even if the proper

scope of so-called judge-made law is controversial. A better definition may be that

5 Chapter X (Section 92 to 92F) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 10A to 10E of Income Tax Rules, 1962

6 Income Tax Act, 1961 https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/acts/income-tax-act.aspx

7 Income Tax Rules, 1962 https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/rules/income-tax-rules-1962.aspx



23

https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/acts/income-tax-act.aspxhttps://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/rules/income-tax-rules-1962.aspx

‘reform’ does not mean simply any change to the law but only one which involves

“positive, and significant, development in the law”.

This reflects more fully the need for law reform to be seen to involve an underlying

intention, that new developments should be positive and/or significant. The defining

feature may be that law reform must involve a deliberate purpose to effect improvement,

as a primary goal and not as an incidental consequence. The fact that it is difficult to

draw a clear distinction between law making and law reform, or to encapsulate in precise

language the scope of reform, is of wider significance.

As mentioned above, this paper focuses on the law reform aspects, as opposed to any

law making.

3. Origin of Dispute in USA – DHL Case

To understand the issue better, it would be relevant to look at the genesis of the transfer

pricing controversy around marketing intangibles. This issue first came up for

consideration in the case of DHL before the US Tax Court. This was primarily on

account of the 1968 US TP Regulations (‘US TPR’8) which propounded an important

theory relating to ‘Developer-Assister rules’9. As per the rules the developer being the

person incurring the AMP spends (though not being the legal owner of the brand) was

treated as an economic owner of the brand and the assister (being the legal owner of the

brand), would not be required to be compensated for the use or exploitation of the brand

by the developer. The rules lay down four factors to be considered:

• The relative costs and risks borne by each controlled entity

• The location of the development activity

• The capabilities of members to conduct the activity independently

• The degree of control exercised by each entity.

The principal focus of these regulations appears to be equitable ownership based on

economic expenditures and risk. Legal ownership is not identified as a factor to be

8 The legal framework for transfer pricing in the U.S. is contained in a number of sections of the internal revenue code, as well as in IRS

regulations, mostly under Section 482. http://www.ustransferpricing.com/laws.html 9 The decision in case of DHL for making adjustment on account of AMP expenses, applying Bright Line Test which was rendered in the context of a specific law viz. Developer-Assister Rule, in US TPR (US Reg. 482-4). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.482-4



24

http://www.ustransferpricing.com/laws.htmlhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.482-4

considered in determining which party is the developer of the intangible property,

although its exclusion is not specific. However, the developer-assister rule were

amended in 1994, to include, among other things, consideration of ‘legal’ ownership

within its gamut, for determining the developer/owner of the intangible property, and

provide that if the intangible property is not legally protected then the developer of the

intangible will be considered the owner.

However, the US TPR recognize that there is a distinction between ‘routine’ and ‘non-

routine’ expenditure and this difference is important to examine the controversy

surrounding remuneration to be received by the domestic AE for marketing intangibles.

In the context of the above regulations, the Tax Court in the case of DHL coined the

concept of a ‘Bright Line Test’ (‘BLT’)101

by differentiating the routine expenses and

non-routine expenses. In brief, it provided that for the determination of the economic

ownership of an intangible, there must be a determination of the non-routine (i.e. brand

building) expenses as opposed to the routine expenses normally incurred by a distributor

in promoting its product.

An important principle emanating from the DHL ruling is that the AMP expenditure

should first be examined to determine routine and non-routine expenditure and

accordingly, if at all, compensation may be sought possibly for the non-routine

expenditure.

4. Global guidance on the issue of AMP

The AMP issue was, since then, picked up across the world and many authorities,

including OECD and United Nations provided some guidance on this issue. Following

paragraphs provide a gist of guidance provided by various authorities.

4.1 OECD Guidelines11

a) The OECD Guidelines have defined marketing intangibles as follows:

Marketing intangibles include trademarks and trade names that aid in the

commercial exploitation of a product or service, customer lists, distribution

10

The bright line test as per DHL case held that he expenditure on advertisement and brand promotion expenses which exceed the average of AMP expenses incurred by the comparable companies in India, is required to be reimbursed/ compensated by the overseas associated enterprise. 11

OECD Guidelines https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/1922428.pdf



25

https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/1922428.pdf

channels, and unique names, symbols, or pictures that have an important

promotional value for the product concerned.

b) The OECD Guidelines in Chapter VI under paragraph 6.36 to 6.38 states the

problems faced when marketing activities are undertaken by enterprises not owning

trademarks or trade names that they are promoting, for example in case of distributor

of goods.

c) The OECD Guidelines mention that such marketer who is undertaking marketing

activities should be compensated whether as a service provider or with a share in

additional return attributable to marketing intangibles.

d) The OECD Guidelines under paragraph 6.38 states the following in relation to return

attributable to the marketing intangible:

“Distributor may bear extraordinary marketing expenditures beyond what an

independent distributor in such a case might obtain an additional return from the

owner of a trademark, perhaps through a decrease in the purchase price of the

product or a reduction in royalty rate”

4.2 UN TP manual12

a) United Nations Transfer Pricing Manual provides for the allocation of such cost of

market penetration, marketing expansion and market maintenance strategies between

a MNE and its subsidiaries under the TP Regulations

b) Para 5.3.2.5 of the TP manual provides that the allocation of the cost of these

strategies between a MNE and its subsidiaries is an important issue in TP and will

depend on the facts and circumstances of each case

c) UN Manual in its Chapter 10, paragraph 10.4.8.12 to 18 has discussed the Indian

position on intangibles.

d) The UN Manual in paragraph 10.4.8.15 has stated the steps in determination of

arm’s length price in cases of marketing intangibles. It has mentioned functional

analysis, stages of development of marketing intangibles by Indian subsidiary,

12

US TP Manual http://www.ustransferpricing.com/laws.html



26

http://www.ustransferpricing.com/laws.html

ascertaining who bears the cost of development and examination of remuneration

model of Indian Subsidiary.

e) The UN Manual in paragraph 10.4.8.14 describes that the Indian tax administration

computes the ALP in the cases involving marketing intangibles following the

concept of a “bright line” test but also faces lot of challenges and also provides for

various contentions of the Taxpayers against the same.

4.3 Australian Tax Office (‘ATO’) guidelines13

a) The ATO has published a guide that illustrates the Tax Office view on the principles

for determining an appropriate reward for marketing activities performed by an

enterprise in relation to a marketing intangible that it does not own.

b) The key matters that determine the approach to such situations are:

i. The contractual arrangements between the trade name owner and marketer, in

particular the duration of the agreement, the nature of the rights obtained by the

marketer in respect of the trade name, and who bears the costs and risks of the

marketing activities.

ii. Whether the level of marketing activities performed by the marketer exceeds that

performed by comparable independent enterprises.

iii. The extent to which the marketing activities would be expected to benefit the

owner of the trade name and/or the marketer, and

iv. Whether the marketer is properly compensated for its marketing activities by a

normal return on those activities or should there be a share in an additional return

on the trade name.

c) Accordingly the ATO Guidelines concludes that in case enterprises not owning

trademarks or trade names undertake marketing activities for its AE’s benefits, then

they should be compensated adequately.

13 Australian Transfer Pricing Guidelines https://www.ato.gov.au/business/large-business/in-detail/business-bulletins/articles/strengthening- transfer-

pricing rules/



27

https://www.ato.gov.au/business/large-business/in-detail/business-bulletins/articles/strengthening-%09transfer-pricing%20rules/https://www.ato.gov.au/business/large-business/in-detail/business-bulletins/articles/strengthening-%09transfer-pricing%20rules/

4.4 New Zealand Guidelines14

a) As per New Zealand’s TP Guidelines, legal ownership remains entirely with the

parent company, even though its value has been enhanced by the marketing activities

of its New Zealand subsidiary.

b) The marketing might be treated as a service provided to the parent company, with

reimbursement being provided on a cost plus basis.

4.5 China Guidelines15

a) China is also expanding its audit scope to include local marketing intangibles,

arguing that local marketing activities create excess profit, which should be taxed in

China.

b) The use of deemed transaction of AMP, when combined with Circular 363, suggest

an environment in which loss-making entities are likely to be challenged

aggressively. Circular 363 already states that certain, simple entities should not incur

losses under almost any circumstances.

Thus, there exists enough international guidance on the TP aspects of AMP; however, there is

no guidance from the Indian Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’)16

on this issue.

Moreover, the Indian tax law has its unique provisions, which also require clarifications on the

corporate tax aspects of the issue of AMP.

14

Australian Transfer Pricing Guidelines https://www.ato.gov.au/business/large-business/in-detail/business-bulletins/articles/strengthening-transfer-pricing-rules/ 15

China TP Regulations https://www.ibfd.org/sites/ibfd.org/files/content/pdf/itpj_2017_PPV_JulyNewsletter_China.pdf 16 . The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is a part of Department of Revenue in the Ministry of Finance. The CBDT provides inputs for policy and planning of direct taxes in India, and is also responsible for administration of direct tax laws

through the IT Department. The CBDT is a statutory authority functioning under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963. The

officials of the Board in their ex officio capacity also function as a division of the Ministry dealing with matters relating to levy and

collection of direct taxes. The CBDT is headed by Chairman and also comprises six members, all of whom are ex officio Special

Secretary to the Government of India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairperson,_Central_Board_of_Direct_Taxes



28

https://www.ato.gov.au/business/large-business/in-detail/business-bulletins/articles/strengthening-transfer-pricing-rules/https://www.ato.gov.au/business/large-business/in-detail/business-bulletins/articles/strengthening-transfer-pricing-rules/https://www.ibfd.org/sites/ibfd.org/files/content/pdf/itpj_2017_PPV_JulyNewsletter_China.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairperson,_Central_Board_of_Direct_Taxes

5. AMP expenses - Indian Scenario

5.1 Overview

Transfer Pricing Litigation concerning Advertising marketing and sales promotion

(AMP Expenses) and creation of Marketing Intangibles for the Foreign Associated

Enterprise, has come to the fore in recent years. In the absence of statutory law on the

subject, the law is getting developed purely through judicial pronouncements and the

same is still at a very nascent stage. In a typical MNC business model, the Indian

subsidiary acts as a distributor/provider of goods/services and incurs AMP expenses for

the promotion of its products or services. The Assessees have contended that the AMP

expense is incurred necessarily for the purpose of selling its products/services in the

Indian market or that they are the economic owners of the purported marketing

intangibles, if any.

In the past, there have been instances of the Tax Department not allowing a tax

deduction for such expenses on the basis that the expenses promote the brand of the

foreign Associated Enterprise (‘AE’)17

in India and resultantly since the expenses benefit

the foreign AE such expenses should not be allowed as a tax deduction in the

determination of taxable income of the Indian AE. Various judicial pronouncements

have held that where the expenditure has been incurred for the purposes of business of

the Indian company, the payment should be allowed as a deduction.

Resultantly, the issue (incurring of AMP expenses and creation of Marketing

Intangibles) has now entered the realm of transfer pricing controversy. The contention of

the Tax Department has been that since the Indian company incurs expenses which

benefit the foreign AE, the Indian company should be reimbursed for such expenses.

In fact, the proposition has been that by promoting the brand in India, the Indian

subsidiary is providing a service to the foreign AE, for which it should receive due

compensation (which could be the recovery of expenses incurred plus an appropriate

mark-up over and above such expenses). It is contended by the Tax Department that

such advertisement and brand promotion expenses resulted in creation of marketing

intangibles which belong to the AE and appropriate compensation for such

17

Meaning of Associated Enterprise

https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Acts/Incometax%20Act,%201961/2014/102120000000037184.htm



29

https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Acts/Incometax%20Act,%201961/2014/102120000000037184.htm

advertisement and brand promotion expenses was required to be made by the Foreign

AE.

Accordingly, the Transfer Pricing Officers (“TPOs”)18

in India, applying the ‘Bright

Line Test’ as laid down in the decision of US Tax Court in DHL Inc.’s case, have held

that the expenditure on advertisement and brand promotion expenses which exceed the

average of AMP expenses incurred by the comparable companies in India, is required to

be reimbursed/ compensated by the overseas associated enterprise.

The principle followed by the Tax Department is that the excess AMP expenditure

incurred by the Indian AE contributes towards the development and enhancement of the

brand owned by the parent of the multinational group (the foreign AE). This perceived

enhancement in the value of the brand is commonly referred to as ‘marketing

intangibles’

The issue for consideration here is that where an Indian AE is engaged in distributing

branded products of its foreign AE, and the Indian AE incurs AMP expenditure for

selling the products, whether such expenses have been incurred for marketing of the

product or for building the brand of the foreign AE in India. The Tax Department ought

to appreciate the difference between product promotion and brand promotion. Product

promotion primarily targets an increase in the demand for a particular product whereas

Brand Promotion results in creation of Marketing Intangibles.

There have been many decisions (mainly Tribunal Decisions) which have discussed the

aspect of AMP expenditure which leads to creation of marketing intangibles for the

foreign AEs who have derived benefits and TP adjustments in respect thereof. However,

the Tribunals in the decisions pronounced prior to the retrospective amendments made

by the Finance Act, 201219

, in this regard, have held that since the specific international

transactions pertaining to AMP expenses have not been referred to the TPO by the

Assessing Officer (‘AO’) the assumption of the jurisdiction by the TPO in working out

the ALP of the AMP transaction is not justified. Furthermore, assessees, prior to the

amendments introduced by Finance Act, 2012, have contended that marketing

18

“Transfer Pricing Officer” means a Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner authorised by the Board12 to perform all or any of the functions of an Assessing Officer specified in sections 92C and 92D in respect of any person or class of persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairperson,_Central_Board_of_Direct_Taxes 19

Finance Act, 2012 https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/acts/income-tax-act.aspx



30

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairperson,_Central_Board_of_Direct_Taxeshttps://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/Pages/acts/income-tax-act.aspx

intangibles per se were not covered under the meaning of the term “international

transaction”.

However, the amendments brought by Finance Act, 2012 in the Indian Transfer Pricing

Regulations empower the TPO to scrutinize any international transactions which the

TPO deems fit and additionally, the definition of the term international transaction has

been broadened to bring within its ambit provision of services related to the

development of marketing intangibles.

5.2 The journey of Indian TP litigation on AMP

a) The Maruti Suzuki Case by Delhi High Court:

While there have been numerous case laws on the issue of AMP by Indian Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’), some of the decisions have been the milestones in

the journey of TP litigation on AMP. The issue started with Maruti Suzuki’s case at

ITAT, which further travelled to High Court [Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. ACIT

(2010‐TII‐01‐HC‐DELTP)]20.

In connection with the AMP spends incurred by Maruti Suzuki, the Delhi High Court

laid down the following guidance:

i. If the AMP spends are at a level comparable to similar third party companies, then

the foreign entity would not be required to compensate the Indian entity.

ii. If the AMP spends are significantly higher than third party companies, the use of

foreign entity’s logo is mandatory and the benefits derived by the foreign entity are

not incidental, then the foreign entity would be required to compensate the Indian

entity.

However, later, the Supreme Court remanded back the issue to the files of the

Assessing Officer (‘AO’) to evaluate the issue in light of law, without being biased

with the decision of High Court.

20

Maruti Suzuki V. CIT 64 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi).pdf



31

b) The LG Case by special bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’):

Later, the special bench of ITAT adjudicated the issue by upholding that the AMP is

an international transaction and BLT is an appropriate methodology to compute the

Arm’s Length Price (‘ALP’), however, the special bench provided a partial relief to

the Assessee by identifying the expenses, which need to be excluded from AMP,

being in the nature of product promotion or pure advertisement for sales. The

special bench opined that there nothing called ‘economic ownership’ within the

provisions of the Indian Income Tax regime. Following decisions followed the LG

ruling to adjudicate the AMP matters:

Particulars Citation Copy of Case law

Whirlpool of India Ltd

[2015] 64 taxmann.com 324

(Delhi) 01. CIT v. Whirlpool 381 ITR 154.pdf

Daikin Air-conditioning

India (P.) Ltd.


(Delhi - Trib.) 02. Daikin Airconditioning India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 146 ITD 335.pdf

Casio India Co. (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 375

(Delhi - Trib.) 03. Casio India Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 70 SOT 48.pdf

c) The BMW Case by Delhi ITAT:

However, subsequent to the LG ruling, the Delhi bench of ITAT, in case of BMW,

distinguished the LG ruling and provided a relief to the assessee by adjudicating that



32

no adjustment for AMP is required since the margins of the assessee are sufficiently

higher than those of comparables. The main distinguishing point by the Delhi bench

was that BMW was a distributor as against LG being a manufacturer. Following

ITAT rulings followed the BMW rationale to provide relief to the taxpayers:

Particulars Citation Copy of Case law

Casio India Co. (P.)

Ltd.

[2015] 58 taxmann.com

375 (Delhi - Trib.) 04. Casio India Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 70 SOT 48.pdf

Bose Corporation

India (P.) Ltd.


(Delhi - Trib.) 05. Bose Corporation India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 150 ITD 542.pdf

Motorola Solutions

India (P.) Ltd.


248 (Delhi - Trib.) 06. Motorola Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 152 ITD 158.pdf

Perfetti Van Melle

India (P.) Ltd.


390 (Delhi - Trib.) 07. Perfetti Van Melle India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 166 TTJ 636.pdf

Ray Ban Sun Optics

India Ltd.


460 (Delhi - Trib.) 08. Ray Ban Sun Optics India Ltd. v. DCIT 150 ITD 94.pdf

d) The Sony case by Delhi High Court:

Later, the Delhi High Court, in case of Sony, provided a substantial relief to the

Indian distributors, wherein, the High Court upheld the presence of international

transaction by way of heavy AMPs, rejected the application of BLT, since not

prescribed within ITPR, adjudicated that the compensation for AMP can be direct or



33

indirect, recognized the concept of economic ownership, accepting the benefit of

AMP accruing to the assessee, based on a long term contract establishing economic

ownership. Following rulings followed the High Court’s decision on Sony:

Particulars Citation Copy of Case

Law

Adobe Systems Incorporated [2016] 69 taxmann.com 228

(Delhi) 09. Adobe Systems Incorporated v. ADIT 292 CTR 407.pdf

AT & S India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 324

(Kolkata - Trib.) 10. AT & S India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 72 taxmann.com 324.pdf

Whirlpool of India Ltd [2015] 64 taxmann.com 324


Mattel Toys (India) (P.) Ltd [2016] 72 taxmann.com 86

(Mumbai - Trib.) 12. DCIT v. Mattel Toys (India) (P.) Ltd. 183 TTJ 81.pdf

Discovery Communications

India


(Delhi - Trib.) 13. Discovery Communications India v. DCIT 175 TTJ 271.pdf

Essilor India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 68 taxmann.com 311

(Bangalore - Trib.) 14. Essilor India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 178 TTJ 69.pdf

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer

Healthcare Ltd.


(Chandigarh - Trib.) 15. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. v. JCIT 175 TTJ 552.pdf



34

Particulars Citation Copy of Case

Law

Goodyear India Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 67

(Delhi - Trib.) 16. Goodyear India Ltd. v. DCIT 70 taxmann.com 67.pdf

Honda Siel Power Products

Ltd.


(Delhi) 17. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. DCIT 283 CTR 322.pdf

India Medtronic (P.) Ltd. [2016] 66 taxmann.com 218

(Mumbai - Trib.) 18. India Medtronic (P.) Ltd v. DCIT 66 taxmann.com 218.pdf

Bausch & Lomb India (P.)

Ltd.


(Delhi - Trib.) 19. Bausch & Lomb India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 59 taxmann.com 448.pdf

e) Latest Maruti Suzuki case by Delhi High Court:

Later, the Delhi High Court ruled in another case of Maruti Suzuki, keeping the

AMP outside the scope of TP and adjudicating that the burden to prove a transaction

is on the tax department. The High Court held that the provisions of ITPR do not

permit an exercise of deducing the existence of an international transaction in the

nature of AMP spend, when such expenses have admittedly been incurred by the

Indian company for its own business. Following decisions followed the rationale of

the Delhi High Court in respect of this Maruti Suzuki case:



35

Particulars Citation Copy of Case Law

Whirlpool of India

Ltd





Honda Siel Power

Products Ltd.



L'Oreal India (P.)

Ltd.


(Mumbai - Trib.) 23. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 49 ITR(T) 473.pdf

Mondelez India

Foods (P.) Ltd.


(Mumbai - Trib.) 24. Mondelez India Foods (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 70 taxmann.com 112.pdf

Thomas Cook

(India) Ltd.


(Mumbai - Trib.) 25. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. DCIT 49 ITR(T) 178.pdf

TVS Motor

Company Ltd.

2017] 77 taxmann.com 105

(Chennai - Trib.) 26. TVS Motor Company Ltd. v. ACIT 77 taxmann.com 105.pdf

Whirlpool of India

Ltd







36

Honda Siel Power

Products Ltd.



L'Oreal India (P.)

Ltd.


(Mumbai - Trib.) 23. L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT 49 ITR(T) 473.pdf

5.3 Summary: Divergent views by the courts, requiring law reforms:

The section below provides a brief comparative analysis of the 3 major decisions

discussed above:

Issue Maruti Suzuki Ruling Sony Ericsson

Ruling

LG Special

bench Ruling

Copy of the case

Maruti Suzuki V. CIT 64 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi).pdf

Sony Ericssion Vs. CIT 55 taxmann.com 40.pdf

LG Electronics India Vs. ACIT - 29 taxmann.com300.pdf

AMP expenses

constitute an

International

Transaction

AMP expenses is not an

International

Transaction as

application of BLT is

not permissible under

TP regulations

AMP expense is an

International

Transaction as the

marketing and

distribution functions

are performed towards

a related party.

Amp expenses is

an International

Transaction.

Application of

BLT/bifurcation of

expenses into

routine versus non

Relying on the Sony

Ericsson ruling,

application of BLT

Application of BLT

and concept of non-

routine AMP expenses

BLT accepted as

a tool to bifurcate

AMP expenses

into routine and



37

Issue Maruti Suzuki Ruling Sony Ericsson

Ruling

LG Special

bench Ruling

routine rejected. rejected. non-routine

Transfer Pricing

Approach

If payment of royalty and

import of raw materials

is tested separately, there

is no additional benefit

flowing by way of AMP

expense.

AMP function is

closely linked to and a

part of the overall

distribution activity

can be aggregated for

TP analysis.

Purchase of

goods and AMP

expense are

separate

transactions è

Cannot be

aggregated

Set off

permissible/aggreg

ation of

transactions

No TP adjustment is

warranted as the major

margins of the taxpayer

is higher vis-à-vis the

comparables by

application of the

TNMM.

Distribution of goods

and marketing are

closely linked

transactions. Hence,

no adjustment is

warranted if the

taxpayer is

remunerated

adequately by higher

margins on the

distribution of goods.

The AMP

function is to be

separately

compensated

even if there is

higher

profitability in the

distribution.

Economic

Ownership of

intangibles

Concept of economic

ownership appreciated.

Concept of economic

ownership

appreciated.

Concept of

economic

ownership

rejected.

Much water has flown during the past decade in the arena of benchmarking of marketing

and market development functions carried out by the Indian subsidiaries. It may be



38

candidly admitted that while the issue of development of marketing intangibles by the

Indian arm of multinationals is a valid one in the arena of Indian Transfer Pricing, the

evidence brought on record by the TPOs for the existence of a legal basis for invoking

transfer pricing provisions, has been held in various decisions of the High Courts to be

mostly inadequate.

In the interest of reducing avoidable, time consuming and costly litigation which

benefits nobody and for providing certainty to foreign investors and encouraging inflow

of much needed FDI, the Finance Ministry should issue necessary detailed fair,

reasonable and equitable/balanced guidelines with suitable illustrations and examples on

the lines of Australian Tax Office’s Guidelines or bring in necessary statutory

amendments in Indian Transfer Pricing Regulations. The Guidelines/Statutory

Amendments should be framed keeping in mind the business realities which Foreign

Businessmen have to face in India; particularly the fact that, in view of accelerating

changes in technology, the shelf life of a product or service is very short, such that an

Electronic Product (Smartphone, Tablet, Laptop etc.) tends to get outdated within 6-9

months of its launch. This necessitates recoupment of expenditure on product research

and development by garnering significant level of market share, in a very short time by

means of aggressive expenditure on advertisement, marketing and sales promotion,

leaving the competition well behind.

6. Law reform on the issue of AMP expenses - Urgent need

While the Indian TP Regulations are very broad, it is important to get clarity on

following aspects, which, may be guided by the Central Board of Direct Taxes

(‘CBDT’) by way of Frequently Asked Questions (‘FAQs’) or Notifications/Circulars.

A practice of providing taxation consultation papers is prevalent in the overseas

countries, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, etc., which is a good practice on the law

reforms.

6.1 Whether incurring of AMP is an international transaction?

While Section 92B (1) defines the term international transactions and includes the

‘marketing intangibles’ in the same, the moot point is whether the issue of AMP

expenses incurred by Indian entity falls within the purview of marketing intangibles

when such intangibles are legally owned by the overseas foreign entity; Also, in what



39

situation can the Indian taxpayer be said to be contributing towards development or

enhancement of marketing intangibles legally owned by an overseas Group entity?

The allegation by the Indian Revenue Authorities (‘IRA’) is that the Indian taxpayers

have incurred excess AMP, thereby, providing brand development/brand promotion

services to the overseas Associated Enterprise (‘AE’). In such a situation, the issue is

not about marketing intangibles, but an ‘implied’/‘embedded’ service transaction, which

is undertaken without receipt of a service fee. Moreover, a plain vanilla comparison of

AMP costs with the comparables will not provide a conclusive proof that the expenses

are incurred towards promotion of a brand on account of following reasons:

a) The taxpayer may be a late entrant in the market and may need to incur heavy AMP

costs to create market awareness for the ‘branded products’ to facilitate sales, as

opposed to ‘promotion of a brand’,

b) The nature of expenses need to be considered as to whether the expenses are

towards ‘promotion of branded products for higher sales’ or for ‘promotion of

brand’ itself,

c) The choice of mode of advertisement/promotion also is important, e.g., if an entity

chooses to have a mass television advertisement, then its costs will certainly be

higher than those of an entity choosing the print media as the mode of

advertisement.

Considering the above, it is important to be very clear as to whether:

i. The taxpayer has incurred an expense for its own business and on its own account

and whether the benefits of such an expenditure will accrue to the taxpayer itself for

a foreseeable future, i.e. whether the taxpayer is an ‘economic owner’ of the

intangibles/benefits accruing out of the heavy AMP costs even though it is not the

legal owner of the brand? Or

ii. The taxpayer is a simplicity service provider, having no recourse to the future

economic benefits and hence a service provider to the brand owner on account of

heavy AMP costs?

Thus, the situation (i) may lead the issue of heavy AMP to development of ‘marketing

intangible’ on own account, whereas, the situation (ii) will lead to an issue of



40

‘implied’/‘embedded’ transaction of service provision without a remuneration. Thus,

only under circumstances similar to a situation (ii), the AMP costs can be considered as

an international transaction.

The law reform can provide clarifications on the above position in the form of clear and

objective parameters that are to be taken into account by the stakeholders for

ascertaining the existence of an international transaction, so as to provide a certainty on

the issue to the stakeholders.

6.2 Once the existence of international transaction is determined, whether there needs

to be a separate compensation for such international transaction or such

compensation can be in an indirect form, such as by way of reduction in the price

of products imported by the Indian entity from the overseas AE?

It would be important to clarify the circumstances where the margins earned by the

Indian taxpayer shall be considered to be adequate and no separate compensation is

insisted upon for the excessive AMP expenses incurred by the Indian entity, For eg:

where the intercompany contract and pricing provides for an indirect compensation to

the Indian entity such as by way of reduction in the price of products imported by the

Indian entity from the overseas AE. Moreover, it would also be important to provide

guidance on the identification of comparables in such cases, since, identification of

comparables with lower AMP spends/absence of AMP function may not provide an

appropriate basis for evaluating the adequacy of margins earned by the taxpayer.

Further, the CBDT should also identify parameters for categorizing the benefits of AMP

spend of an Indian taxpayer as ‘incidental benefit’ to the overseas legal owner of the

brand, which is not an intra-group service, as per the OECD guidelines.

6.3 Need for guidance on the concept of economic ownership.

While the Special bench of ITAT in case of LG clearly disregarded existence of any

‘economic ownership, the Delhi High Court in case of Sony has recognized the concept

of ‘economic ownership’. The High Court dealt with this issue by stating that the onus

to demonstrate economic ownership is on the taxpayer; however, there is no guidance in

terms of objective parameters as to what constitutes an economic ownership.



41

A mere existence of a long term contract may not constitute an economic ownership,

unless such a contract is entered into based on arm’s length circumstances and terms and

conditions. Such terms should clearly bring out that the licensee is an economic owner

of the intangibles and any enhancement thereto. Such a contract may need a clear clause

on the pre-mature termination of such a long term contract and specify the manner of

computation of ‘exit charge’, if any.

If a contract doesn’t comply with the test of ‘arm’s length behaviour’ and does not

address some of the points mentioned above, it may be difficult for a taxpayer to

demonstrate the economic ownership and in such a case, the taxpayer may get

categorized under situation (ii) from point number 6.1above, thereby, implying the

heavy AMP as a service to the owner of brand, requiring a remuneration.

Following references to other guidance may help the CBDT for this purpose:

a) It is interesting to note that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (‘OECD’) also has recognized the concept of economic ownership, by

bringing out the key functions in relation to the intangibles, based on Development,

Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation (‘DEMPE’).

b) The Japanese administrative guidelines (para 2.12) also specify that for a licensing

transaction for an intangible property, not only the legal ownership, but also the

contribution of respective entities in the formation, maintenance and development of

it also need to be considered.

c) A guidance can also be drawn from the Circular 6 of 2015 by the CBDT, where, for

the applicability of TNMM, the CBDT refers to important parameters, such as actual

supervision and control as well as the ability to do so, the strategic functions, such as

conceptualization, etc.,

d) The United Nations (‘UN’) Transfer Pricing Manual (‘TPM’) discusses the concept

of economic ownership in Chapter 5, wherein it states that the economic ownership of

a trademark/trade name can be created based on such entity’s contribution in the

strategy of enhancing the market share.

6.4 Need for guidance on tax treatment of economic ownership.



42

If the economic ownership is established, it is clear that the heavy AMP may not be an

international transaction. However, assuming that the economic ownership is

established, it is important for the CBDT to come up with guidance on the following

aspects:

a) Under what circumstances should the economic ownership need remuneration?

While the economic owner is expected to reap the benefits of the asset for itself, it

would be important to specify whether a pre-mature termination of a long term

contract would need a remuneration for the ‘economic ownership’, calling it as

‘relinquishment’/‘extinguishment’ of contractual rights under the scope of Section 2

(27) of the Act or whether the remuneration is required by way of an ‘exit charge’.

b) Chargeable head of taxation?

It would be important to identify whether the remuneration against economic

ownership is taxable

i) Under the head Profits and Gains of Business and Profession (‘PGBP’) in terms

of Section 28 (iv), i.e. any value of any benefit arising from business or Section

28 (va), i.e. for non-compete reasons, or

ii) Under the head capital gains, treating the pre-mature termination/non-renewal of

a long term contract as ‘relinquishment’/‘extinguishment’ of a capital asset under

Section 2 (27) or a transfer of contractual rights as referred to in Section 32 of the

Act.

c) Clarifications required if the remuneration is taxable under the head capital

gains

If the remuneration against the economically owned intangible is considered to be

taxable as capital gains, it would be important to get guidance on following

important aspects:

i) Cost of acquisition of asset: Whether the same should be considered as NIL as

per the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, treating the asset as ‘self-generated’

asset, or considering the costs incurred and royalties paid on development of

assets as the cost of acquisition.



43

ii) Availability of indexation: It would also be important to get clarity on the

availability of indexation for the economically owned intangible and the

parameters for determining the period of holding for such an asset.

iii) In case the cost of acquisition/indexation doesn’t get any clarity, the machinery

of taxation of capital gains itself would fail, thereby making the remuneration as

non-taxable, as per the verdict of the Supreme Court in case of B. C. Srinivasas

Shetty.

d) Clarifications required if the remuneration is taxable as PGBP

OECD provides a guidance that mere transfer of functions/risks would not require

any compensation by way of exit charge, unless, such a transfer is coupled with the

transfer of assets. Assuming that the situation is a bundled situation of transfer of

functions and assets (extinguishment = transfer), and further assuming that the exit

charge is required and is taxable as PGBP, a guidance is further required on the

manner of computation of the exit charge.

e) Non applicability of TP provisions

If a conclusion is drawn that the exit charge/remuneration is neither taxable as

PGBP nor as Capital Gains, then the provisions of Chapter X of the Act itself (i.e.

the entire TP provisions) will not apply since the machinery Section 92 refers to

computation of ‘income’ having regard to the arm’s length price, implying thereby,

that the precondition for TP is ‘taxable income’.

6.5 Whether the pre-mature cancellation / non-renewal of a long term contract is an

international transaction of ‘business restructuring’ or a transaction of transfer of

‘marketing intangibles.

This would be important since there could be an ambiguity in interpreting the above

situation as ‘transfer’ of the marketing intangibles. Moreover, a business restructuring is

an international transaction, irrespective of the fact whether it has any impact on the

profits/income/assets, etc.

6.6 Reporting requirements and documentation



44

The CBDT should also come up with a guidance on the manner of reporting the TP

aspects of the AMP costs in the Accountant’s Report (in prescribed Form 3CEB), since

the taxpayer may take a position that there exists an economic ownership, thereby,

negating any existence of an international transaction. Moreover, the CBDT should also

provide guidance on the documentation to be maintained to demonstrate the

appropriateness of the AMP costs, the existence of the economic ownership, etc.

6.7 onstituents of routine and non-routine AMP costs.

While the special bench of ITAT has provided guidance on the routine AMP costs, i.e.

costs for promotion of products, it would be important for CBDT to come up with

guidance on this aspect. It may be possible to clarify that only non-routine AMP costs

may need evaluation around the economic ownership/‘underlying’ or ‘implied’ or

‘embedded’ service transaction.

6.8 Method for computation of ALP for the AMP service income/exit charge/ transfer

price.

A detailed guidance on selection of method, computation of ALP, conducting valuation,

if applicable, is required to be provided by the CBDT. While the Bright Line Test

(‘BLT’) may not be the most appropriate way to identify the cost of provision of service,

the CBDT may come up with a detailed guidance on this aspect.

6.9 Alternate dispute resolution on the AMP issue.

The CBDT may also come up with Safe Harbour Rules on the AMP costs to provide

administrative relief for insignificant / normal AMP costs and small and medium

enterprises. A detailed guidance on resolution of an Advance Pricing Agreement

(‘APA’) or Mutual Agreement Procedure (‘MAP’) may help the taxpayers to explore

alternate dispute resolution to achieve certainty on the aspects of their AMP costs.

6.10 Applicability of General Anti Avoidance Regulations (‘GAAR’)

It would also be necessary to categorically examine whether this ‘substance vs. form’

issue would be covered under the TP provisions (Specific Anti Avoidance Regulations –

‘SAAR’) or the GAAR, since the manner and procedures for handling such situations

differ under the Indian Income-tax Act. While the SAAR refers to Arm’s Length Price



45

(‘ALP’) for a known / identified transaction (i.e. form), the GAAR refers to the entire

circumstances of a transaction, such as arm’s length behaviour, etc. (i.e. substance).

7. Conclusion

The action on law reform is not just required at the end of law makers by way of

guidance / clarity on various taxation aspects, but also in the mind-set of taxpayers, tax

consultants and tax authorities. Mere efforts by the tax law makers will not be

sufficient, since all the stake holders need to be a part of such a law reform. A clarity on

this issue will further help in improving the ‘ease of doing business barometer’ of India

as it would provide objective criteria for avoiding tax base erosion on this issue.



46

References:-

1) 1968 US TP Regulations (‘US TPR’)

2) OECD Guidelines in Chapter VI under paragraph 6.36 to 6.38

3) Para 5.3.2.5 of the TP manual

4) UN Manual in its Chapter 10, paragraph 10.4.8.12 to 18

5) Supreme Court in case of B. C. Srinivasas Shetty. (128 ITR 294 SC)

6) Circular 6 of 2015 by the CBDT

7) Japanese administrative guidelines (para 2.12)

References of Case laws

8) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. ACIT (2010‐TII‐01‐HC‐DELTP)]

9) Whirlpool of India Ltd [2015] 64 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi)

10) Daikin Air-conditioning India (P.) Ltd. [2013] 37 taxmann.com 14 (Delhi - Trib.)

11) Casio India Co. (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 375 (Delhi - Trib.)

12) Bose Corporation India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 24 (Delhi - Trib.)

13) Motorola Solutions India (P.) Ltd. [2014] 48 taxmann.com 248 (Delhi - Trib.)

14) Perfetti Van Melle India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi - Trib.)

15) Ray Ban Sun Optics India Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 460 (Delhi - Trib.)

16) Adobe Systems Incorporated [2016] 69 taxmann.com 228 (Delhi)

17) AT & S India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 324 (Kolkata - Trib.)

18) Whirlpool of India Ltd [2015] 64 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi)

19) Mattel Toys (India) (P.) Ltd [2016] 72 taxmann.com 86 (Mumbai - Trib.)

20) Discovery Communications India [2015] 64 taxmann.com 120 (Delhi - Trib.)

21) Essilor India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 68 taxmann.com 311 (Bangalore - Trib.)

22) GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 84 (Chandigarh -

Trib.)

23) Goodyear India Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi - Trib.)

24) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 328 (Delhi)

25) India Medtronic (P.) Ltd. [2016] 66 taxmann.com 218 (Mumbai - Trib.)

26) Bausch & Lomb India (P.) Ltd. [2015] 59 taxmann.com 448 (Delhi - Trib.)

27) Goodyear India Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi - Trib.)

28) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 328 (Delhi)

29) L'Oreal India (P.) Ltd. [2016] 69 taxmann.com 419 (Mumbai - Trib.) 30) Mondelez India Foods (P.) Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 112 (Mumbai - Trib.) 31) Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 322 (Mumbai - Trib.) 32) TVS Motor Company Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 105 (Chennai - Trib.)



47

PAPER ON LAW REFORMS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN … · 2018. 7. 29. · sections or rules within...

Documents

Transcript of PAPER ON LAW REFORMS IN THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN … · 2018. 7. 29. · sections or rules within...