9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 1099 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - when the assessee was having sufficient non-interest bearing funds for making investments during the year, then there is no reason to make addition Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92CA by the TPO - NO upward adjustment in ALP in relation to charging of guarantee commission.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Adjustment of Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue was the disallowance of Rs. 20,27,896/- under Section 14A related to the expenditure incurred in earning exempt income. The assessee declared a dividend income of Rs. 31,98,330/- as exempt under Section 10(33). The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Rule 8D, which was effective from AY 2008-09, to compute the disallowance. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee did not provide specific details in response to the show-cause notice. The CIT(A) referenced the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, which stated that Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09, but the AO must determine the expenditure on a reasonable basis. The assessee argued that investments were made from surplus funds, including proceeds from an IPO, and no interest cost was incurred for such funds. The CIT(A) dismissed this argument, stating that the assessee did not maintain separate accounts for investments and business funds, leading to the conclusion that indirect interest expenses were incurred. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had significant surplus funds and investments in foreign subsidiaries, whose dividend income is taxable. Hence, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted for these investments. However, acknowledging the administrative costs, the Tribunal upheld a nominal disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh for administrative expenses related to earning exempt income. Thus, the disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed. 2. Adjustment of Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act: The second issue concerned the adjustment of Rs. 28,50,353/- made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for guarantee commission charged from the assessee's subsidiary. The assessee provided a corporate guarantee to ICICI Bank, Bahrain, for loans to its subsidiary in Dubai, charging a 0.5% guarantee commission. The TPO, referencing various bank rates, benchmarked the ALP for the guarantee commission at 3%, leading to the adjustment. The assessee contended that no cost was incurred for providing the guarantee as the subsidiary had hypothecated its assets, and the 0.5% commission was reasonable. The CIT(A) upheld the TPO's decision, stating that the assessee did not benchmark the transaction and the 3% rate was justified. The Tribunal found that the TPO's application of a 3% rate based on external comparables was not appropriate, as it did not consider the specific circumstances and terms of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the assessee paid a 0.6% guarantee commission to ICICI Bank in India for its own credit arrangement, which served as a reliable internal comparable. Given the minor difference and the lower interest rate on the subsidiary's loan, the Tribunal concluded that the 0.5% commission charged by the assessee was at arm's length. Consequently, the adjustment of Rs. 28,50,353/- was deleted, and the appeal on this ground was allowed. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with a nominal disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 14A upheld and the adjustment of Rs. 28,50,353/- on guarantee commission deleted.
|
