J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (ORAL)

1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 10th December, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No.1114/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT has erred in rejecting the bright line test which is in substance a mere methodology of determining the quantum of AMP expense by solely taking recourse to the decision of this Court in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communication vs. CIT, 374 ITR 118 (Del) and ignoring the larger issue of reimbursement of AMP expenses by the AE to the assessee. He states that the ITAT has erred in directing the exclusion of routine sales and distribution expenses when the TPO has explicitly highlighted that the assessee in this case necessarily trades the branded products manufactured by the AE and hence the benefit of any intangible created in the process is directlyaccruing to the AE.

3. He also states that the ITAT has erred in not appreciating the finding of the TPO where the AMP expense incurred on various advertisements and marketing/sales promotion activities by the assessee was under the brand name ‘SHARP’ and n