Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. This common judgment will dispose of these appeals and cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue in which one of the primary issue that emanates for consideration is whether advertisement, marketing and sale promotion expenditure ('AMP', for short) beyond and exceeding the 'bright line' is a separate and independent international transaction undertaken by the resident Indian assessee towards brand building for the brand owner, i.e. the foreign Associated Enterprise ('AE', for short). Other core issues pertain to aspects of arm's length pricing of international transactions.

2. The details of appeals and cross-appeals by the assessees and the Revenue and the assessment years involved are as under:

Assessment year	ITA No.	Assessee	Cross Appeal by Revenue
2008-09	16/2014	Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd/Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd. Now known as, Sony India Ltd.	155/2014
2008-09	70/2014	Discovery Communications India	218/2014
2006-07	521/2013	Canon India Pvt. Ltd.	132/2014
2008-09	92/2014	Daikin Air Conditioning (India) Pvt. Ltd.	214/2014
2007-08	93/2014	Daikin Air Conditioning (India) Pvt. Ltd.	215/2014
2008-09	99/2014	Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd.	642/2014
2006-07	100/2014	Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd.	621/2014
2007-08	101/2014	Haier Appliances Pvt. Ltd.	622/2014
2008-09	109/2014	Reebok India Company	213/2014
2007-08	512/2014	Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd.	618/2014
2008-09	513/2014	Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd.	498/2014

The common substantial questions of law which are required to be dealt with in the appeals by the assessee read:

1. Whether the additions suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of Advertising/Marketing and Promotion Expenses ('AMP Expenses' for short) was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law as no specific reference was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to retrospective amendment to Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 2012.

2. Whether AMP Expenses incurred by the assessee in India can be treated and categorized as an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. Whether under Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a transfer pricing adjustment can be made by the Transfer Pricing Officer/ Assessing Officer in respect of expenditure treated as AMP Expenses and if so in which circumstances?

4. If answer to question Nos.2 and 3 is in favour of the Revenue, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that transfer pricing adjustment in respect of AMP Expenses should be computed by applying Cost Plus Method.

5. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that fresh bench marking/comparability analysis should be undertaken by the Transfer Pricing Officer by applying the parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of the order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the Special Bench in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd.?

The common substantial questions of law which are required to be dealt with in the appeals by the Revenue read:

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in distinguishing and directing that selling expenses in the nature of trade/volume discounts, rebates and commission paid to retailers/dealers etc. cannot be included in the AMP Expenses?

Additional question of law framed in CIT v. Reebok, ITA No.213/2014 reads:-

Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside/deleting transfer pricing adjustment made on account of payment of royalty to an associated enterprise?

A. Background facts and assessments

3. The assessed are subsidiaries of the foreign AEs. The assessed and the foreign AEs are all members of Multi-National Enterprises ('MNE', for short). During the relevant period, the assessed were e