9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 909 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - addition of interest on receivables - adjustment on account of interest on overdue intra-group receivable - HELD THAT - As the interest on intra-group receivable is less than the interest on intra-group payables, therefore, the adjustment on account of interest on overdue intra-group receivable does not hold good. Assessee had transactions with both AEs and Non-AEs and accordingly, a comparison of outstanding position in terms of debtor days in both the AE as well as non-AE transactions can be done for determining whether the credit period extended to the AEs is at arm's length or not. The debtor days given to the AEs are less than the debtor days given to the non-AEs. Also contended that it did not levy any interest on delayed payments made by the non-AEs, despite the fact that the debtor days given to the non-AEs were more than the debtor days given to the AEs and therefore, justified not to charge interest on the delayed payments by the AEs as well. At times 120 days are given to the non-AE entity for payment from billing date. In view of the above discussion, the ld. CIT(A) held that the AO/TPO is not justified to charge interest on receivables without factoring in the payables to the AE/AEs. Having considered the entire facts and found them to be irrefutable, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Intra-group services 2. Interest on receivables Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Intra-group Services: The revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) regarding the intra-group services provided to the assessee by its associated enterprises (AEs), DMC and ADHK BV. The Assessing Officer (AO) had determined the arm's length price (ALP) of these services as "Nil" using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, arguing that no independent enterprise would pay for such services without demonstrable benefits. The AO noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the actual rendering and benefit of these services with concrete evidence, such as specific need or benefit derived from the services, and did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The AO also criticized the assessee for not performing a proper Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis or benchmarking these services under any of the five prescribed methods in the Transfer Pricing report. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by relying on the orders of the ITAT and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The ITAT had previously held that the services received by the assessee were intrinsically linked to its core business operations and could not be analyzed in isolation. The ITAT had accepted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for determining the ALP of these services, emphasizing that the agreement for services should be viewed as a whole rather than splitting it into individual services. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the ITAT found no change in the material facts or the proposition of law. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, reiterating that the services received were critical and linked to the core business operations of the assessee, and the AO's determination of "Nil" ALP was based on surmises and conjectures. Interest on Receivables: The AO made an adjustment of ?5,666,322 on account of interest on overdue intra-group receivables, which were pending for more than 30 days. The assessee argued that the net monthly balance payable to the AEs was higher than the receivables, and provided a detailed comparison of debtor days for AE and non-AE segments. The debtor days for AEs were found to be less than those for non-AEs, and the assessee did not charge interest on delayed payments from non-AEs despite longer debtor days. The CIT(A) held that the AO/TPO was not justified in charging interest on receivables without considering the payables to the AEs. The CIT(A) found the assessee's arguments and evidence irrefutable and declined to interfere with the order. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the AO's adjustment was not justified and that the credit period extended to AEs was at arm's length. The appeal of the assessee was allowed. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding intra-group services, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on consistent findings from previous years and the Hon'ble High Court. The adjustment for interest on receivables was also dismissed, with the ITAT agreeing that the AO/TPO's approach was unjustified. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 11/10/2021.
|
