The recent decision of the Delhi Court in the case of CIT-1 vs Casio India Company Pvt. Ltd. represents a significant milestone in Indian case law on transfer pricing and the treatment of advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses. In its ruling, the Court dismissed the tax authority’s appeal seeking to adjust these expenses on the premise that they benefited the foreign associated enterprise (AE).
This ruling reaffirms key principles for multinational taxpayers: equal treatment, judicial consistency, and the requirement for substantial evidence to impose adjustments on AMP. In this article, I analyze the background of the case, the arguments of the parties, the reasoning behind the ruling, and its practical implications, not only for India but also as a reference for other emerging transfer pricing regimes.
Background of the case and tax context
What are AMP expenses and their relevance in transfer pricing
AMP (Advertising, Marketing & Promotion) expenses are expenditures that a company makes to promote products, strengthen its brand, carry out advertising campaigns, manage sales promotions, etc. In the context of transfer pricing, a tax authority may argue that such expenses indirectly benefit the foreign associated enterprise, as they contribute to brand value or global positioning, and therefore should be included as an international transaction and valued at arm’s length.
This approach is based on the theory that marketing expenses incurred by a local subsidiary could, in part, generate “marketing intangibles” exploited by the AE. If this premise is accepted, the controversy arises: to what extent should these expenses be adjusted?
One of the methods that has been invoked to adjust these expenses is the Bright Line Test (BLT), which consists of comparing the proportion of AMP to the entity’s sales with an average of comparables and considering as “excess” that part that exceeds a threshold. This excess is then adjusted with a markup (e.g., 15%) to allocate it to the PE. However, this method is not expressly contained in Indian transfer pricing regulations, which has led to legal debates.
Case law history in India
The treatment of AMP expenses under the transfer pricing regime in India has been the subject of disputes and contradictory decisions. The following milestones are noteworthy:
- In Maruti Suzuki India, the court held that AMP expenses could be considered an international transaction, based on the argument that the local subsidiary used the brand of its PE. However, this approach was qualified in subsequent rulings.
- In LG Electronics India, the ITAT accepted a Bright Line Test approach to adjust excessive AMPs.
- In the famous 2015 Sony Ericsson ruling, the use of the BLT as an automatic adjustment tool was questioned, as it had no statutory backing. The Court held that, while AMP expenses may be international transactions in theory, the BLT is not a valid mechanism on its own for setting the arm’s length price.
- Over the years, the principle of uniformity and consistency has been invoked by taxpayers in the face of repeated demands for adjustment in successive years without substantial new facts.
The Casio India case is part of this doctrinal evolution: the tax authority challenges the AMP expenses for the 2017-18 assessment year, arguing that they should be adjusted, while Casio invokes favorable case law from previous years to oppose the adjustment.
Arguments presented by the parties
Tax authority
- Argued that the AMP expenses incurred by Casio India conferred an indirect benefit on its foreign PE and should therefore be considered an international transaction under section 92B of the Income Tax Act.
- Defended the use of the Bright Line Test by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to identify the “excessive” portion of the AMP expense that should be adjusted.
- It argued that the recurring nature of the AMP expenses and the nature of the business justified periodic review of such adjustments.
- It sought to distinguish the 2017-18 financial year from previous years, claiming that there were factual or particular differences in the AMP expenses for that year that required further analysis.
Casio India
- It argued that AMPs were ordinary local operating expenses and did not confer a direct or substantial benefit on the foreign PE.
- It appealed to the principle of judicial consistency, pointing out that previous litigation over AMPs in past years had been resolved in its favor, and there were no material differences in the facts that would justify a change in treatment.
- It pointed out that the Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had already suppressed the AMP adjustment for that fiscal year, and that that ruling was binding or at least should be respected as precedent.
- It rejected that the mere use of the BLT allows for an adjustment without further robust evidence demonstrating that the excessive expense actually generated a transaction between related parties.
Analysis of the Delhi Court’s ruling
Principle of judicial consistency
One of the central grounds for the ruling was that issues related to AMP expenses in previous years had been treated favorably for Casio India Company Pvt., and that there were no substantial factual differences in the 2017-18 proceedings that would justify a different approach. Therefore, the principle of parity was invoked: if the facts are essentially the same, the legal treatment must be consistent.
The Court found that the tax authority failed to demonstrate that there was a new “substantial question of law” or distinctive elements that would warrant altering the criteria applied in previous years.
Rejection of the Bright Line Test as an automatic mechanism
The Court recalled that the use of the BLT as a prescriptive formula for generating automatic adjustments is not explicitly supported by Indian transfer pricing law. Consequently, relying exclusively on this method to impose AMP adjustments would be inappropriate.
Furthermore, it stated that the AMP expenses in the case were consistent, routine, and necessary for the operation of the company in India, and did not present extraordinary characteristics that would justify automatic markups.
Requirement for concrete evidence
The ruling emphasized that the tax authority did not present tangible and substantial evidence that part of those AMP expenses had generated a benefit attributable to the foreign PE. The mere relationship between the parties and the recurrence of the expense are not sufficient to justify an adjustment.
The Court rejected the authority’s argument that the existence of the recurring expense and its nature were sufficient in themselves to support a presumption of benefit to the PE. That burden of proof falls on the authority.
Right to certainty and end of repetitive litigation
A strategic point of the ruling is the defense of the principle of legal certainty and the end of endless litigation. Allowing the authority to make adjustments on the same facts every year undermines the stability of the tax regime. The Court noted that opening repetitive litigation on the same types of expenses, without new facts, contravenes concepts of tax justice and administrative predictability.
Final decision
Ultimately, the Delhi Court dismissed the appeal by the tax authority and confirmed that there is no reason to impose transfer pricing adjustments on Casio India’s AMP expenses for the year 2017-18. The adjustment was denied and the favorable treatment of the Court of Appeals (ITAT) was upheld.
Practical implications of the ruling
For multinational taxpayers in India
- Reinforcement of the defensive strategy based on precedents: Companies with a history of favorable litigation on AMP can invoke this ruling as support to argue that they should not be subject to adjustments in subsequent years, provided there are no new or distinctive facts.
- Caution in the proposal of MAP adjustments by the authority: Tax authorities must have concrete and differentiated evidence to justify adjustments, beyond using automatic formulas such as the BLT.
- Incentive to properly document AMP expenses: Subsidiaries must document the local purpose of their campaigns, segmentation, beneficiaries, and demonstrate that the expense derives primarily from the local business and not from one shared with the AE.
- Lower risk of prolonged litigation: This type of ruling helps to limit the practice of reopening adjustments year after year based on identical grounds, which promotes greater certainty.
Lessons for other emerging transfer pricing regimes
Although the ruling is limited to the regulatory context of India, the central ideas have international resonance:
- The use of economic tests (such as the Bright Line Test) without legal backing may be questionable in regimes where they are not explicitly recognized.
- Principles such as consistency, equal treatment, and legal certainty are decisive factors in transfer pricing litigation.
- Tax authorities must articulate clear evidence that an expense affects transactions between related parties to support adjustments, rather than relying on generic inferences.
- In emerging markets, taxpayers gain ground if they can demonstrate that certain expenses are indispensable for local operations and not for the creation of global intangibles.
Conclusion
The Delhi Court’s decision in the Casio India case reaffirms that the treatment of AMP expenses under transfer pricing cannot depend on automatic formulas without a legal basis or rigorous evidence. The ruling underscores the relevance of jurisprudential consistency, the requirement for tangible evidence, and the principle of certainty for taxpayers.
For multinational companies operating in jurisdictions with emerging or evolving transfer pricing regimes, this case offers valuable guidance: a defense based on solid precedents, careful documentation, and an emphasis on factual differentiation can make all the difference in the face of potential tax adjustments.
Are you facing challenges with your transfer pricing policies?
At TPC Group, we provide specialized advice on transfer pricing and international taxation throughout Latin America, helping companies anticipate tax risks and strengthen their compliance in similar scenarios.
Source: The Legal Affair