IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER&

SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6623/MUM/2024 (AY: 2021-22)

(Physical hearing)

L’Oreal India Private Limited DCIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai A-Wing, 8^th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400020.

Mumbai – 400013.

[PAN: AAACL0738K]

Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth Advocate Revenue by Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR Date of Institution 18.12.2024 Date of hearing 04.09.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.09.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the addition made in A.Y.

assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and section 144B dated 29.10.2024, passed in pursuance of direction of DRP dated 01.08.2024 for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

A Transfer Pricing Grounds Adjustment on account of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion ('AMP') expenses Adjustment proposed by incorrectly applying Section 92CA(3) of the Act and disregarding the relevant submissions made during the assessment proceedings

1 Erred in making an addition of Rs 184,75,26,393 to the total income of the Appellant under Section 92CA(3) of the Act on account of adjustments in the arm's length price ('ALP) of the alleged international transactions undertaken by the Appellant;

Presumption of fictitious transaction in the nature of 'provision of brand promotion services' since AMP is not an international transaction

2. Erred in alleging that the AMP expense incurred by the Appellant is an international transaction under Section 928 of the Act;

3. Erred in ignoring that the Appellant has not rendered any service to the Associated Enterprises ('AEs') and hence erroneously treating and categorizing AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant on its own behalf, as an international transaction of the nature of provision of brand promotion services between the Appellant and AEs under Section 928 of the Act;

4. Failed to appreciate the fact that AMP expenses were incurred 'wholly and exclusively for purpose of business of the Appellant in India and no benefit was passed on to the AE and hence, there should not be any reimbursement of such expenses to the Appellant;

5. Erred in ignoring that in absence of a valid international transaction, the adjustment is outside the purview of the jurisdiction of learned AO/ TPO, as the alleged AMP transaction is not covered under Section 928 of the Act;

6. Erred in not appreciating that there is no arrangement whatsoever between the Appellant and its AEs for promotion of AEs brand by incurring AMP expenses on behalf of the AEs;

7. Erred in linking the AMP expenses incurred by the Appellant for its own business in India, as expenses incurred for the purpose of/towards brand building activities for its AEs;

8. Erred in not following the orders of the Hon'ble the ITAT in the Appellant's own case for AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2011- 12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15, ΑΥ 2015-16, AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 which were brought to notice, where on identical facts, the Hon'ble ITAT has held that there is no 'arrangement between the Appellant and AEs and directed to delete the entire AMP adjustment along with mark-up on AMP, holding that the same is not an international transaction;

9. Erred in concluding that the Appellant is engaged in performing development, enhancement, maintenance, protection or exploitation ('DEMPE') services which includes market development, value addition, creation of marketing intangibles etc and there is mutual agreement/

arrangement between the Appellant and its AE for discharging market development functions;

10. Erred in overriding the charging provisions of Section 4 of the Act by the machinery provisions of Section 92 of the Act to bring to tax fictional/ assumed/ hypothetical income/ bene