2016 (5) TMI 1621 - HC - Income Tax

Treating interest earned on short-term fixed deposit - income from other sources and not business income - as contended by the Assessee, the Court finds that DRP observed that It is also not the case of assessee that fixed deposits are to be maintained with bank for the requirement of LC - case of the Assessee is that it has placed its unutilized funds in short term fixed deposits with banks which is yielding interest income. HELD THAT - In the grounds of appeal before the ITAT no specific challenge was raised by the Assessee to the above factual finding that the FDs were not being maintained to meet any requirement of the Bank for opening LC or for any other business purpose. In that view of the matter, the Court is unable to find any infirmity in the above treatment of interest income as income from other sources.

Summary

Issues:
1. Grievance against ITAT order on comparables and working capital adjustment.
2. Refusal to refer to Assessee's chart on comparables.
3. Directions for fresh determination by AO/TPO.
4. Treatment of interest earned on short-term fixed deposit.

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the High Court concerned the Assessee's grievance against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the Assessment Year 2009-10, specifically regarding comparables and working capital adjustment. The ITAT had remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO)/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for a fresh determination, following its previous order for the AY 2008-09.

2. The Appellant contended that the ITAT should have considered a chart submitted by the Assessee listing the comparables to be included and excluded. However, the Revenue argued that all issues were left open for fresh consideration by the AO/TPO, including the Assessee's chart.

3. The ITAT's order required the AO/TPO to reconsider two issues: comparables and working capital adjustment. The Assessee sought clarity on comparables, particularly referencing para 14 of the ITAT's order which linked back to the previous order. The Court noted the specific directions in para 11 of the previous order, emphasizing the need for a detailed analysis and a speaking order on the issue of comparables.

4. Consequently, the High Court directed the AO/TPO to proceed in accordance with para 11 of the previous ITAT order for the AY 2009-10. The Court highlighted the importance of detailed factual contentions and the Assessee's right to present arguments, ensuring a speaking order in line with the law.

5. Regarding the treatment of interest earned on short-term fixed deposits, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had classified it as "income from other sources" rather than business income. The Assessee's argument that the fixed deposits were placed to generate interest income was considered. However, since no challenge was raised before the ITAT on the factual finding that the deposits were not maintained for specific business purposes, the Court upheld the classification of interest income as "income from other sources."

6. Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the appeal based on the above considerations, affirming the treatment of interest income and providing directions for the reconsideration of comparables and working capital adjustment by the AO/TPO.