2015 (12) TMI 1188 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Transfer pricing adjustment - Was there an international transaction between WOIL and its AE involving the AMP expenses within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act read with Section 92F(v) of the Act? - Held that:- As far as the present appeals are concerned, the Revenue has been unable to demonstrate by some tangible material that there is an international transaction involving AMP expenses between WOIL and Whirlpool USA. In the absence of that first step, the question of determining the ALP of such a transaction does not arise. In any event, in the absence of a machinery provision it would be hazardous for any TPO to proceed to determine the ALP of such a transaction since BLT has been negatived by this Court as a valid method of determining the existence of an international transaction and thereafter its ALP.

Question put as there an international transaction between WOIL and its AE involving the AMP expenses within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act read with Section 92F(v) of the Act is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently Question (ii) in the Assessee's appeal is not required to be answered. Further, the only question framed in the Revenue’s Appeal viz., "Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 180,73,10,769 made by the AO/TPO on account of AMP expenses under Section 37 of the Act?" is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.