9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1070 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - adjustment on account of TP study pertaining to interest on outstanding receivables - TPO returned a finding that the outstanding receivables in the case of the assessee constitute an international transaction which is liable to be benchmarked separately - argument was advanced on behalf of the assessee was that the outstanding receivables arising from intercompany services transactions (included in the definition of ' international transaction' vide Finance Act 2012) was duly benchmarked by the assessee by undertaking working capital adjustment during assessment proceedings and the same is subsumed in the working capital adjustment - HELD THAT - In view of the sequence of events, it would be noted that the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare 2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT is still the binding precedent on the issue of interest on outstanding receivables. Needless to mention that the law laid down by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare was followed by the ITAT in case of Global Logic India Ltd. 2021 (11) TMI 1090 - ITAT DELHI , 2020 (6) TMI 712 - ITAT DELHI , 2020 (9) TMI 572 - ITAT DELHI and 2017 (12) TMI 1052 - ITAT DELHI Hence, keeping in view, the established position, we hereby deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Appeals of the assessee are allowed
Issues:
1. Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in violation of mandatory provisions. 2. Confirmation of draft assessment order by the Dispute Resolution Panel and Transfer Pricing Officer. 3. Computation of demand and errors in levy, set-off, and credit calculations. 4. Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) without proper satisfaction. 5. Treatment of outstanding receivables as deemed loan and charging notional interest. 6. Application of working capital adjustment and impact on transfer pricing. Issue 1 - Violation of Mandatory Provisions: The appeal challenged the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, alleging non-compliance with binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, leading to a void assessment. The grounds included errors in passing the final assessment order and the confirmation of the draft assessment order without following prescribed procedures. Issue 2 - Confirmation of Draft Assessment Order: The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, treating outstanding receivables as deemed loans and charging notional interest. The Panel rejected the assessee's contention that the TPO did not follow directions, emphasizing the consistent presence of outstanding receivables and the impact on revenue loss. The Panel applied amended law and OECD guidelines to benchmark the international transaction separately. Issue 3 - Computation of Demand and Errors: Errors in the computation of demand were highlighted, including the incorrect levy of surcharge, failure to grant set-off of MAT credit, and discrepancies in granting tax credits. The appeal also raised concerns regarding the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) without proper satisfaction recorded. Issue 4 - Treatment of Outstanding Receivables: The treatment of outstanding receivables as deemed loans and the charging of notional interest were contested. The argument included inadvertent errors in considering the duration of outstanding receivables and the application of working capital adjustments during assessment proceedings. Issue 5 - Application of Working Capital Adjustment: The application of working capital adjustment and its impact on transfer pricing were extensively discussed. Various judicial precedents were cited, including decisions by the Delhi Tribunal and High Court, to determine the treatment of interest on delayed payments of receivables and the necessity for independent benchmarking. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, citing established legal positions and precedent judgments. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted based on the binding precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Stay Application filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous, and the appeals were allowed.
|
