IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner of Income Arena, Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Adugodi, Bangalore. Vs.

Bengaluru – 560 030.

PAN: AAACC9862F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16-03-2026

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-12, Bengaluru dated 22/06/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2014-15 and raised the following grounds:

“Grounds of appeal on Transfer Pricing Issue;

i. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and law, in holding that AMP expenses is not covered under the definition of the international transactions when as per the amended provisions of section 92B(1), mere fact that service or benefit has been provided by one party to the other would by itself constitute a transaction irrespective of whether consideration for the same has been paid or remains payable or whether there is a mutual agreement or not to charge any compensation for such service or benefit and thereby, AMP expenses constitute an international transaction.

ii. Whether under the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Hon'ble CITA) erred in not appreciating that as per Indian Transfer Pricing legislation Compensation for the function performed (AMP services rendered to the A.E.s in these cases) needs to be benchmarked separately.

iii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble CIT(A) was justified in examining the appropriateness of AMP expenditure only from the viewpoint of its role in creation/ building of brand /brand awareness and not examining its role from the viewpoint of creation of marketing intangibles as a whole?

iv. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble C1T(A) was justified in holding that AMP activities arc carried out only to increase sales without appreciating that brand building/creation of marketing intangibles is a separate function altogether and many a times is carried out despite persistent losses? v. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CITA) has misconstrued Revenue's assertion by holding that AMP expense is a measure of brand valuation whereas the assertion of Revenue was that an increased level of AMP expense led to the creation of a marketing intangible in India, in favor of the overseas AE?

vi. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) was Justified in not appreciating the fact that bright line is a mere step /of the Most appropriate method for benchmarking the AMP services) carried out to bifurcate expenditure pertaining to the taxpayer for its own routine distribution function and the expenditure incurred on AMP service provided to the AE-in a situation where the assessee has not reported the international transaction pertaining to marketing function.

Grounds of appeal on Corporate Issue:

i. Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred on facts and law, by allowing the assessee's appeal against the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.4,11,550/- on commercial vehicle made by the AO.

ii. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in not considering that the higher rate of depreciation of 50 % is allowable where the assessee is engaged in the business of running commercial vehicles.

iii. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was correct in holding that deduction u/s. 10B of the Act has to be granted without taking into account losses or depreciation of the business of running the vehicles for commercial purposes or brought forward losses or depreciation of earlier years?

iv. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was correct in holding that as