9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1820 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Interest on receivables - HELD THAT - As established that the transactions with the AEs are at arms length price. All the AEs are 100% subsidiary companies and the assessee is debt free company having large amount of reserves. The department has not made out a case of undue advantage of allowing credit. CIT(A) has given finding that the receivables were received in reasonable period and there was no delay. The department did not place any evidence to controvert the finding given by the CIT(A). Therefore, we hold that there is no case for making adjustment of interest on receivables in the assessee s case. DR did not place any other decision of the Apex Court to controvert the case laws relied upon by the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and appeal of the revenue on this ground is dismissed. Corporate guarantee to subsidiaries - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the facts are identical. The assessee had given corporate guarantee to its 100% subsidiary and the AE for the purpose of business. The assessee had not incurred any expenditure towards the corporate guarantee. The revenue could not bring any evidence to establish that the assessee had incurred any expenditure for extending the corporate guarantee. As stated by the Ld.AR it is the obligation on the part of the assessee to extend the support and assistance to its subsidiaries for business development. Since the facts are identical, respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches in the case laws cited, we hold that the corporate guarantee given by the assessee on behalf of its AE would not constitute an international transaction within the meaning of 92B of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Interest on Receivables 2. Corporate Guarantee to Subsidiaries Detailed Analysis: Interest on Receivables: The primary issue under consideration was related to the interest on receivables. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the Assessing Officer (AO) identified an international transaction exceeding ?15 crores and referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP). The TPO found that an amount of ?10,21,81,783/- was due from Associated Enterprises (AEs) at the end of the year. The TPO proposed to charge interest at 6% on delayed payments beyond a 60-day credit period, resulting in an addition of ?66,41,816/-. The AO relied on precedents from M/s Logix Micro Systems Ltd. and M/s Chiel India Pvt. Ltd. to justify the interest rate. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who deleted the addition. The CIT(A) noted that the receivables were from 100% subsidiaries of the assessee, which had significant capital reserves and minimal borrowings. The CIT(A) found that the TPO's assertion that the bifurcation of receivables was not provided was incorrect. The CIT(A) also observed that the price charged to AEs accounted for the extended credit period and was higher compared to non-AEs. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Bain Capability Centre India (P.) Ltd and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., to conclude that no TP adjustment was necessary for receivables in this context. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT(A)’s decision. The Tribunal referenced similar cases, including Mahati Software Pvt. Ltd. and GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd., where it was held that no separate benchmark is required for receivables when the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) is comparable. The Tribunal found that the department did not establish undue credit extension or systematic planning to allow undue credit to AEs. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal on this ground. Corporate Guarantee to Subsidiaries: The second issue involved the provision of a corporate guarantee amounting to ?177.29 crores to the assessee’s AEs, which was not disclosed in Form 3CEB and the TP study report. The TPO proposed an adjustment of ?2,83,66,400/- at 1.60% of the corporate guarantee amount. The assessee argued that the corporate guarantee was extended to protect its interest in its 100% subsidiaries and was for commercial purposes, without incurring any direct financial benefit or cost. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following the orders of the ITAT Hyderabad in the cases of Bartronics India Limited and Dr. Reddy Laboratories Limited, which held that providing a corporate guarantee without incurring any cost does not constitute an international transaction under section 92B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, referencing the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2013-14, where it was held that corporate guarantees given to 100% subsidiaries for business purposes do not constitute international transactions requiring ALP adjustment. The Tribunal noted that the department did not provide evidence of any expenditure incurred by the assessee for extending the corporate guarantee. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal on this ground as well. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal in its entirety, upholding the CIT(A)’s deletion of additions related to interest on receivables and corporate guarantees to subsidiaries. The Tribunal’s decision was based on established judicial precedents and the factual matrix of the case, emphasizing that no adjustments were warranted in the absence of incurred costs or undue financial benefits.
|
