Maruti Suzuki ruling - Bright-line gone, but is there a silver-lining to 'Marketing intangibles' controversy?

In a significant development, Delhi HC [TS-595-HC-2015(DEL)-TP] has held that AMP-expenses incurred by Maruti Suzuki  India (“MSIL”) is not an international transaction u/s 92B. The ruling has been rendered on facts specific to MSIL’s case and the HC has distinguished the landmark co-ordinate bench ruling in Sony Ericsson. HC however has extensively relied on rejection of Bright Line Test in Sony ruling. HC has also emphasized on Revenue's obligation to prove existence of transaction wherein Indian entity is obliged to spend excessively.


Can Maruti Suzuki ruling be considered as rendered in the context of manufacturers only or does it even apply to other business models?  How does combined reading of Maruti Suzuki and Sony decisions impact AMP jurisprudence and especially the ongoing DRP and ITAT appeals?   Do you think a legislative amendment is required to clarify marketing intangibles law?