आयकर अपील(cid:9)य अ(cid:10)धकरण, ‘डी’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, चे(cid:14)नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:21)ी मनु कुमार (cid:10)गtiर, (cid:14)या(cid:26)यक सद(cid:29)य एव ं (cid:21)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:29)य के सम$

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:3299/Chny/2024 (cid:26)नधा%रण वष % / Assessment Year: 2008-09

अपीलाथ’ क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ()यथ’ क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Saddik Ahmed, J.C.I.T.

सनु वाई क* तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणा क* तार(cid:9)ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM:

This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) dated 30.09.2024, arising out of the assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 1(1), Chennai (in short “AO”) u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘the Act’) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 dated

01.03.2022.

2. In this appeal the solitary issue which has been raised by the Revenue is in relation to deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment of AMP expenses by the ld.CIT(A).

3. The facts of the case emanating from the records are that initially when the assessment was completed the international transactions has been referred to transfer pricing officer for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP). The then Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) seem to have made 2 adjustments one in relation to the margin of the Assessee and an another adjustment in relation to disallowance of portion of AMP expenses. Apart from this the Assessing officer while passing the draft assessment order has made disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Aggrieved against the draft assessment order the Assessee has filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel and subsequently before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 22.10.2013 has remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer/TPO for redetermination of the transfer pricing issues. In the giving effect proceedings, the TPO vide order dated 28.01.2016 seem to have once again repeated the same adjustments. The Assessee challenged the giving effect proceedings as barred by limitation in terms of Section 153(2A) of the Act by filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The Hon’ble Madras High Court vide order dated 09.08.2021 in WP.No.18574 of 2016 directed the AO to decide the limitation issue. Later the Assessee has raised the same limitation issue before the ld.CIT(A) and the latter has decided the issue against the Assessee. However, in so far as the TP issues are concerned, the ld.CIT(A) has given partial relief with respect to margin adjustment issue and deleted the adjustment in relation to AMP expenses.

4. Aggrieved against the deletion of AMP adjustment, the Revenue has filed this appeal.

5. The TPO has made AMP adjustment by comparing AMP expenses of the Assessee to total sales ratio of the Assessee vis a vis that of the comparable companies. The TPO was of the view that since the AMP to sales ratio of the Assessee is at 0.80% whereas in the case of the comparable companies it was 2.60%, the difference between these 2 figures has been brought to tax as excessive AMP expenditure incurred by the Assessee to promote the brand of its AE in India. The ld.CIT(A) has deleted this addition by relying on the Delhi ITAT decision in the case of Samsung Electronics India Private Limited order dated 04.10.2019 by holding that once entity level TNMM has been carried out, then AMP expenses cannot be