JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assesses and remitted the matter back to the AO. 2. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,02,98,677/- being adjustment on account of compensation to be received by the assesses from its Associated Enterprise (AE) for creating marketing intangibles and promoting the brand name of its AE, specifically when the assesses company was promoting marketing intangibles of its AE though the brand belongs to the AE and not to the assesses and the products manufactured by the assesses are also manufactured by the AE and its other subsidiaries in different countries with the same name? (2) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenditure was not an international transaction under section 92B even though the assesses was performing Development, Enhancement, Maintenance, Protection and Exploitation (DEMPE) functions for its AE and doing activity of brand building? (3) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding the ground of the revenue as infructous, that the selling expenses should be excluded from the AMP expenditure as well as to use the gross profit rate in the distribution segment as the mark-up on the AMP expenditure? (4) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,92,06,347/- made on account of Arm's Length service fee payment to its Aes specifically when the assesses failed to submit cost benefit analysis for payment of services, proof for requisition of services, proof of availing services and comparison about the cost of services if these services were purchased in India itself? (5) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 5,79,30,029/- made on account of inventories written off specifically when neither any details were furnished by the company nor there was any supporting evidence to justify and establish that the sam deduction was not claimed by it earlier as cost of goods sold? (6) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,08,461/- made on account of travelling and conveyance expenses specifically when the company neither specified the nature and purpose of expenses nor any supporting evidence was filed to justify the claim? (6) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 37,08,461/- made on account of travelling and conveyance expenses specifically when the company neither specified the nature and purpose of expenses nor any supporting evidence was filed to justify the claim? (7) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,92,509/- made on account of miscellaneous expenses which were neither verifiable as no supporting evidence was available and also the same could not be established to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business?" 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent assesses derives income from manufacturing and trading of razors, blades and other shaving systems, grooming products, torches & dry battery cells etc. In this case draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) was passed on 27.02.2015 whereby the total income was assessed at Rs. 3,80,74,59,631/- as against the returned income of Rs. 1,60,68,50,750/- by making the following additions/disallowances: (i) ALP adjustment of Rs. 2,13,04,77,882/- made on account of AMP expenses incurred for benefit of its AEs. (ii) Disallowance of Rs. 5,79,30,029/- on account of inventory written off. (iii) Disallowance out of travelling and conveyance expenses of Rs. 37,08,461/- (iv) Disallowance out of other expenses of Rs. 84,92,509/- Being aggrieved by the draft order of the Assessing Officer, the assesses filed objections before the DRP, New Delhi. The DRP issued directions under section 144C(5) on 23.11.2015 and directed the Assessing Officer to use the assesses gross profit rate in the distribution segment as the mark-up of the AMP expenditure taken for the TP adjustment as against the base rate of SBI in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony Ericsson. The DRP has raised following additional issues: (i) Royalty amounting to Rs. 6,72,27,640/-. (ii) Intra Group Services of Rs. 8,92,06,347/- (iii) Purchase of fixed assets of Rs. 51,33,22,090/-. 4. We have heard counsel for the appellant. 5. Since in the case of same assesses, we have already decided the matter with regard to issue no.1 to 5 in D.B. ITA No.39/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar v. M/s. Gillette India Ltd.) decided on 18.7.2017 wherein it has been held as under:- "4. 51,33,22,090/-. 4. We have heard counsel for the appellant. 5. Since in the case of same assesses, we have already decided the matter with regard to issue no.1 to 5 in D.B. ITA No.39/2017 (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar v. M/s. Gillette India Ltd.) decided on 18.7.2017 wherein it has been held as under:- "4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of the tribunal and contended that tribunal has wrongly relied upon the decision against which the SLP is pending and advertisement expenses which are incurred are disproportionate to the turnover or income. 4.1 In that view of the matter, the tribunal has committed serious error in reversing the finding of AO as well as CIT(A). 4.2 Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the details of the judgment of tribunal and further contended that the issue regarding the chargeable interest and adjustment of Rs. 80,95,948/- made on account of Arm's Length Interest, the tribunal has wrongly charged the same. 5. Counsel for the respondent has contended that question no.6 of appeal no.40/2017 which is question no.4 of appeal no.39/2017 is squarely covered by the decision of this court in D.B. ITA No.349/2011 decided on 23.5.2011. 5.1 He contended that issue no.7 of appeal no.40/2017 is now covered by the decision in DBITA No.33/2016 decided on 23.5.2016. 5.2 Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decisions:- 5.3 In Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai v. General Atlantic (P) Ltd. reported in (2016) 68 taxmann.com 88 (Bombay). 5.4 In CIT Alwar v. M/s Sakata Inx (India) Ltd. D.B. ITA No.72/2015 decided on 18.5.2017. 6. In that view of the matter, both the issues no.6 & 7 are answered in favour of the assesses and against the department. 6.1 Regarding issue no.1,2, & 3, tribunal while considering the expenses of the associated enterprise (AE) for creating marketing intangibles and promoting the brand name of its AE, it is for the marketing people to look new products which has competition in the national level or grass route level and International level. It is always for the Company to decide on what ratio the expenses are to be incurred at grass route and on that ratio for promoting their product. It is always for the Company to decide on what ratio the expenses are to be incurred at grass route and on that ratio for promoting their product. 6.2 In that view of the matter, unless the amount which was found to be not genuine merely because excess amount has been spent on advertisement, will not not be a ground for disallowing the expenses. 6.3 In that view of the matter, on issue no.1 & 2, we are of the view that the tribunal has not committed any error. The issues are answered in favour of the assesses. 6.4 Question no.4 in another appeal being appeal no.40/2017 in view of the facts which are recorded by the tribunal which reads as under:- "Briefly the facts of the case are that during the FY 2008-09, the Appellant had exported finished goods to its AEs amounting to Rs. 28,57,16,513. In the course of assessment proceedings, the TPO had considered the delay in collection of the receivables from the AEs (on account of export of finished goods) as an extension of the credit/loan facility to the AEs. On the outstanding receivables, the TPO proposed to charge a notional interest of 16.25% i.e. Rs. 80,95,948. Aggrieved by the TP Adjustment, the Appellant approached the DRP. The DRP upheld the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO by stating that any receivable arising during the course of business is to be treated as international transaction in light of amendment to explanation to section 92B of the Act. Aggrieved by the DRP's directions, the Appellant has approached the present Bench." 6.5 And conclusion which has been reached in para no.6.13 & 6.14 by the tribunal reads as under:- "6.13 After insertion of explanation 1(c) to section 92B of the Act, the payment of deferred payment or receivable or any debt arising during the course of business shall fall under the definition of international transaction. However, at the same time, these transactions of allowing credit period to AE of realisation of sale proceeds is not an independent international transaction but is closely linked or a continuous transaction along with sale transactions to the AE. The same is also in consonance with rule 10A(d) as well as the concept of aggregation of closely linked transaction supported by the OECD transfer pricing guidelines. The same is also in consonance with rule 10A(d) as well as the concept of aggregation of closely linked transaction supported by the OECD transfer pricing guidelines. In the instant case, no adjustment has been made by the TPO in respect of sale transactions with the AEs and the ALP has been accepted. In light of that, there cannot be any adjustment in respect of the credit period extended to the AE. Even if one way to consider it as an independent transaction, the credit has to be compared with the transactions done by the AE in the form of credit allowed to non-AEs. In the instant case where the assesses is not charging any interest from AE as well as non-AEs then the only difference between the two transactions which can be considered is average period allowed along with outstanding amount to AE and non-AEs. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to suggest that the average period in realisation of the export proceedings is at variance and vastly different. Further it is noted that the Coordinate Bench in the case of Bousch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the identical issue was raised and the contentions regarding the amendment of explanation to section 92B was also raised, has followed the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Indo American Jewellery Ltd. (Supra). 6.14 In light of above respectfully following the Bombay High Court's decision in case of Indo American Jewellery and the Co-ordinate bench decision in the case of Bousch & Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd., we are of the view that there is complete uniformity in the act of the appellant in not charging interest from both AE's and non-AEs and adjustment in realisation to notional interest on outstanding receivable cannot be made. In the result the ground no.4 taken by the assesses is allowed." 7. On the aforesaid factual finding, we find no substantial question of law. Even otherwise, the assesses has not charged from any other person. In that view of the matter, the department cannot compel the assesses to do the same. 7.1 Regarding issue no.3, the department has not preferred any appeal, it is covered by the earlier decision of the tribunal. 7.2 In view of the above, no substantial questions of law arises in these appeals." 6. In that view of the matter, the department cannot compel the assesses to do the same. 7.1 Regarding issue no.3, the department has not preferred any appeal, it is covered by the earlier decision of the tribunal. 7.2 In view of the above, no substantial questions of law arises in these appeals." 6. Regarding question no.3, the tribunal has also observed as under:- 3.9 un-disputedly, there is no change in facts and circumstances of the case and no contrary authority has been brought to our notice. The ld. CIT Dr fairly conceded that the issue is covered in favour of the assesses by earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench. Given the above factual matrix and respectfully following the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki and Coordinate Bench decision in assesses own case, AMP expenditure incurred by the assesses could not be treated and categorised as an international transaction under section 92B of the Act and thereby, the adjustment on account of AMP expenditure is hereby deleted and ground of the assesses appeal is allowed. 7. Regarding issue no.6 which is issue no.2 of Tax Appeal No.125/2016 (Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Alwar v. M/s. Gillette India Ltd.) decided on 23.5.2017 wherein with regard to issue no.2, it has been observed as under:- "5. Regarding issue No.(ii) & (iii), the same are covered by the decision on issue No.(iv) & (v) of appeal No.134/2014, wherein the following reasoning was adopted. "6. Regarding issue No.(iv) & (v) counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 0451 and the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Retilal Becharlal & Sons and Commissioner of Income Tax v. General Atlantic (P) Ltd. [2016] 384 ITR 271 (Bom). 6.1 Counsel for the appellant has contended that the expenses made were not admissible under Section 37 of the Act, where the income was disproportionate to the turn-over. 6.2 In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in allowing expenses. 6.3 However, counsel for the respondent has taken us to para 6.3 where the Tribunal summarizing the same observed as under: 6.3 After considering the rival submission, we find that Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Co. 6.2 In that view of the matter, the Tribunal has seriously committed an error in allowing expenses. 6.3 However, counsel for the respondent has taken us to para 6.3 where the Tribunal summarizing the same observed as under: 6.3 After considering the rival submission, we find that Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian Co. as is evident from the company master details placed at Paper Book Page 17. From the same, it is noted that this company is incorporated on 29.11.2001 having registered office at Mumbai. Therefore, it is an Indian Co. as defined under section 2(26) and is a company resident in India under section 6(3). All payment made to this company towards advertisement charges is in Indian currency. Tax is deducted at source on such payment under section 194C. Section 195 is applicable when payment is made to a non resident. Admittedly, payment to Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. is a payment to resident and not a non resident. Therefore, section 195 is not attracted. The AO has not disputed the genuineness of the payment and therefore only because there is no agreement for the advertisement work with this company cannot be viewed adversely. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 36,70,04,056/- made by the AO is incorrect, against law and the same is deleted. So far as expenses on trade incentive is concerned, we find that similar incentives given as per various schemes in earlier years has been allowed. The AO at Page 2 of the order has admitted that bills and vouchers of expenses, as desired, were produced for verification which was test checked. The observation of AO that services has been received by the assesses against these payment and therefore he should have deducted tax at source on the value of the gift is ill founded in as much as the payment is not against the services but against the sale of goods to the distributors and therefore TDS provisions are not applicable. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 16,17,24,303/- made by the AO on this account is deleted." 6.4 In our considered view, the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be accepted on facts." 8. Regarding issue no.7 which is decided in case of same assesses in Tax Appeal No.134/2014 decided on 23.5.2017 being question no.4 which reads as under:- 7. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 16,17,24,303/- made by the AO on this account is deleted." 6.4 In our considered view, the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be accepted on facts." 8. Regarding issue no.7 which is decided in case of same assesses in Tax Appeal No.134/2014 decided on 23.5.2017 being question no.4 which reads as under:- 7. Regarding issue No.(vi) counsel for the appellant has contended that the miscellaneous expenses were not permissible and vouchers and everything were not properly found. However, Tribunal in para 9.2 has observed as under: "9.2 After considering the rival submission and perusing the material on record, we find that AO has made the disallowance without specifying any particular expenses which is not verifiable or not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business when he has given a finding at Page 2 of the order that bills and vouchers of expenses as desired were produced for verification and examined on test check basis. We also noted that such adhoc disallowance is not approved by the DRP in A.Y. 07-08. Considering the same, the adhoc disallowance made by AO is deleted. This ground of assesses is therefore allowed." 9. In view of the above, no substantial questions of law arises. 10. The appeal stands dismissed.