Case Law Details
Nivea India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
TPO had not brought on record the fact that AMP expenses incurred by assessee were not for its own business. The sole basis on which adjustment, under the head AMP expenditure, was made was that expenditure incurred by assessee was significantly higher than that of its comparable on application of bright line test. There is a subtle but definite difference between product promotion and brand promotion. In the first case product is the focus of advertisement campaign and brand takes secondary or backseat, whereas in second case, brand is highlighted and not the product. In the instant case, assessee was introducing new products in the fields of body-care, deodorants, creams, shower soaps talc, first aid dressing, etc. If it had to penetrate local market, it was to promote products that could compete with similar products of other players. Also, there was no agreement or arrangement between assessee and the AE, for incurring AMP expenses. In view of all this, it could safely be said that expenses incurred by assessee were wholly and exclusively for its own business and not an international transaction within the meaning of section 92B.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
Challenging the orders of the Assessing Officers(AO.s),passed as per the Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panels(DRP.s),the assessee has filed the appeals for the above-mentioned Assessment Years(AY.s).Issues involved in all the appeals are almost similar,so,we are adjudica-ting them together. Assessee-company is a downstream subsidiary of parent company, namely, Beiesdrof AG’ s.Its product portfolio comprises of body lotion,deodorants, telecom,face care products.The details of dates of filing of returns, returned incomes,dates of assessments and assessed incomes can be summarised as under:
