IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRICHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year:2009-10]

Brown Forman Worldwide Assistant Commissioner of Income LLC India, Branch Office, Tax, International Tax, HSIIDC 148, Centrum Plaza, 1st Floor, Vs Building, Vanijya Nkunj, Udyog Golf Course Road, Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, (Opposite Sun City Complex), Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 PAN AACCB2612A Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv.

Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. &

Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, AR Revenue by Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

ORDER

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 27.07.2022 of the Assessing officer arising out of direction of learned Dispute Resolution Pannel, (in short ‘ld. DRP’) 21.06.2022 passed u/s 144(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer, passed in compliance to directions of the ld. DRP, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at IN 1,29,42,885 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned income of IN

84,39,560.

2. Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to INR 45,03,325 in respect of the international transaction pertaining to provision of marketing support services:

2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") has erred in making and the AO/ DRP have erred in upholding the Transfer Pricing ("TP") adjustment of INR 45,03,325 in respect of the international transaction pertaining to the provision of marketing support services.

2.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TO have erred in not correctly interpretating the directions issued by the Hon'ble Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal") and retaining companies in the final comparable set which were excluded by the Tribunal vide consolidated order passed in Appellant's own case for the immediately preceding assessment years i.e., AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09.

2.2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in including ICRA Management Consulting Services India Private Limited, IDC India Limited and Technicom-Chemie India Limited in the final comparable set for bench marking the international transaction pertaining to provision of marketing support services.

2.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in arbitrarily rejecting 18 out of 19 functionally comparable companies, selected by the Appellant in its transfer pricing report, without providing any detailed rejection reasons.

2.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in incorrectly computing the working capital adjusted margins of the comparable companies.

2.4.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in considering miscellaneous expenses, deferred revenue expenditure written off, festival celebration expenses, bad debts written- off, professional fee receivable written off and office expenses as non-operating in nature while computing the margin of comparable companies.

2.4.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in not adopting a consistent approach in treating the expenses as operating or non-operating while computing the margin of the Appellant vis-à-vis the companies chosen as comparables for benchmarking the international transaction.

2.4.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TO have erred in not adopting a