9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 980 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment with respect to receivables from the Associated Enterprises (AE) - International transaction - HELD THAT - As decided in ORANGE BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., VERSUS. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON 2022 (12) TMI 1070 - ITAT DELHI 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 as held that the inclusion in the Explanation to section 92B of the Act of the expression receivables does not mean that de hors the context every item of receivables appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction and (ii) With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-a-vis that of its comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and recharacterized the transaction. 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. v. Dy. CIT 2017 (12) TMI 1052 - ITAT DELHI , 2020 (6) TMI 712 - ITAT DELHI , 2021 (11) TMI 1090 - 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 Involved:
1. Determination of taxable income. 2. Transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on overdue receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs). 3. Jurisdictional error in reference under section 92CA(1) of the Income-tax Act. 4. Corporate tax issues including tax credit and interest charges under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of Taxable Income: The primary issue was the determination of the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the taxable income at INR 145,50,52,760, which was higher than the returned income of INR 133,26,80,602. The assessee contended that the AO made additions based on mere conjectures and surmises, ignoring the factual matrix and the nature of the transactions undertaken. The AO failed to appreciate the submissions made by the assessee and made several factually incorrect and legally untenable observations. 2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment for Notional Interest on Overdue Receivables: The main contested issue was the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 12,23,72,160 related to notional interest on overdue receivables from AEs. The AO/TPO re-characterized inter-company receivables as a separate international transaction of advancing money (in the nature of an unsecured loan) to AEs. The assessee argued that the outstanding receivables were part of the main transaction of providing support services and that no third party would charge interest on amounts receivable from key customers. The assessee also contended that the working capital adjustment already factored in the impact of receivables on pricing/profitability, and hence, no separate adjustment was warranted. The DRP upheld the AO's action, citing the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012, and relevant case laws. However, the ITAT, following the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., deleted the addition made by the AO, stating that the working capital adjustment takes into account the impact of outstanding receivables and no further adjustment is required. 3. Jurisdictional Error in Reference under Section 92CA(1): The assessee challenged the reference made by the AO under section 92CA(1) of the Act, arguing that it suffered from jurisdictional error as the AO had not recorded any reasons nor had any material to reach a prima facie opinion that it was necessary or expedient to refer the matter to the TPO for computation of arm's length price. This issue was not pressed further by the assessee during the appeal. 4. Corporate Tax Issues: The assessee raised several corporate tax grounds, including the failure of the AO to grant complete credit of tax deducted at source, and errors in charging interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. These grounds were not pressed further by the assessee during the appeal. Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee concerning the transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on overdue receivables from AEs, following the jurisdictional High Court's binding precedent. The other grounds raised by the assessee were not pressed and hence not adjudicated. The stay application filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.
|
