ORDER

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. DRP]dated 20.09.2018, for A.Y. 2014-15, 30.08.2019 for A.Y. 2015-16, 09.12.2020 for A.Y. 2016-17, 12.01.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18, 04.03.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19, 30.06.2024 for A.Y. 2020-21/AOs.

A.Y. : 2014-15

ITA No.140/KOL/2019

2. Ground No.1 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication.

3. The issue raised in ground No.2 is relating to Transfer Pricing issue in respect of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion Expenses(AMP) not being international Transaction.

4. The facts in brief are that in TP order dated 27.10.2017 the TPO has discussed the said issue in depth from page 14 onwards and concluded that AMP is an international transaction and accordingly applied a mark-up on the same and proposed an adjustment of Rs 137.97 crores. The assessee company contested the said addition before the DRP. The DRP upheld the findings of the TPO. The relevant extract of the DRP direction is given in para 7.1 and 7.2 (page 23 of the DRP order dated 20.09.2018).

5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on records. We find that AMP expense is not an international transaction as Assessee does not render any marketing and distribution support services to its AEs. Further all the expenses incurred on its own account and has no agreement with its AEs and that AMP expenditure incurred by the Assessee is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its own business. Further the Ld.AR submitted that it is a recurring issue and he relied upon the Assessee’s own case for previous years in ITA No. 621/Kol/2017 for AY 2012-13 ,ITA No. 315/Kol/2016 for AY 2011-12 and ITA No. 114/Kol/2018 for AY 2013-14wherein the said issue has been allowed in favour of the assessee.The relevant extract of the decision in ITA No. 114/Kol/2018 for AY 2013-14is reproduced as under:

“6. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case vide order dated 18.10.2019. In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows:

"6. We have heard rival submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record. We also note that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal, in assessee's own case in ITA No. 560/Kol/2016 & ITA No. 315/Kol/2016 wherein the Tribunal by order dated 28.08.2019 has held that that the AMP expenses cannot be regarded as an international transaction as per section 92 B of the Act in the case of the assessee, so as to invoke provisions of section 92 of the Act. And since the AMP expenditure is not an international transaction, the TP adjustment made in this regard need to be deleted and has observed as under:

"6. Ground No. 2 & 3, are on the issue of Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments, made towards advertising, marketing and promotion expenses (AMP Expenses). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) held that by incurring such expenses, the assessee has provided services to its Associate Enterprises (AE).

Though a number of arguments were advanced by both the parties on this issue, the primary argument of the assessee is that, the transaction in question is not an international transaction. In other words, the submissions of the assessee is that, the AMP Expenses do not constitute international transactions.

6.1. We find that the ITAT Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Philips India Ltd. in ITA Nos. 863 & 539/Kol/2016, order dt.15/12/2017, held as follows:-

"43. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The primary issue here arises whether the AMP expenses constitute the international transactions so as to attract the provisions of transfer pricing of the Income Tax Act. The claim of the ld. AR is that the AMP transaction does not represent the international transaction between the AE's therefo