2018 (10) TMI 1845 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A) Rulings: Dismisses Appeals, Affirms LIBOR Rates, Rejects Transfer Pricing Adjustments.

DCIT, Central Circle – (1), Kolkata Versus M/s. Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd.,

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s rulings on all substantive issues. It upheld the use of LIBOR rates for foreign ... TP Adjustment - interest income adjustment - lower authorities had taken domestic interest rates as the relevant benchmark for arriving at the impugned arm’s length adjustment involving foreign currency denomination loans to the overseas associate enterprise(s) - CIT(A) as directed AO/ TPO to bench mark the impugned loan transaction at LIBOR rate than domestic interest rates keeping in mind the nature of international transaction - HELD THAT:- A catena of case law has already concluded that such foreign currency denomination loans have to be benchmarked at LIBOR rate only. learned departmental representative fails to indicate any legal or factual exceptions thereto. We therefore uphold the CIT(A) findings under challenge. CIT-A concluding that corporate guarantee does not amount to an international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B - HELD THAT:- The revenue fails to quote any judicial precedent to the contrary. We affirm the CIT(A) findings on the instant legal issue as well. The Revenue’s identical first substantive ground seeking to revive ALP adjustment on interest as loans and corporate guarantee fails therefore. Addition u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) - delayed employees contribution to ESI/PF - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) holds that the assessee had paid the amount in issue before the due date of filing return not inviting any disallowance as per decision in CIT vs Vijay Shree Ltd. [2011 (9) TMI 30 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and CIT vs Coal India Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 1451 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] respectively. We affirm the CIT(A)’s findings under challenge. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Assessee has not derived any exempt income in the impugned assessment year. The CIT(A) has followed hon’ble Madras high court’s decision in Redington (India) Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] that the impugned disallowance provision does not apply in the absence of exempt income - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustment on interest income from loans.2. ALP adjustment on corporate guarantees.3. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(Va) read with Section 2(24)(x) regarding employees' contribution to ESI/PF.4. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D regarding expenses incurred in relation to exempt income.Detailed Analysis:1. Arm’s Length Price (ALP) Adjustment on Interest Income from Loans:The Revenue's first substantive ground concerns the ALP adjustment on interest income from loans given by the appellant to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) denominated in USD and EURO. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had computed the interest rate based on the appellant's domestic cost of funds, leading to an upward adjustment. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the TPO's methodology was flawed, as it did not consider the appellant's own surplus funds and the appropriate currency benchmark rates (LIBOR). The CIT(A) directed the TPO to recompute the ALP using the relevant LIBOR rates. This decision was upheld by the Tribunal, which noted that the lower authorities had incorrectly used domestic interest rates, and a plethora of case law supports using LIBOR for foreign currency loans.2. ALP Adjustment on Corporate Guarantees:The second issue pertains to the ALP adjustment on corporate guarantees provided by the appellant to its AEs. The TPO had considered the corporate guarantee as an international transaction and imputed a guarantee fee. The CIT(A) disagreed, citing judicial precedents that corporate guarantees do not fall within the ambit of international transactions under Section 92B of the Act. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the Revenue failed to provide any contrary judicial precedents. The CIT(A) and Tribunal emphasized that the provision of corporate guarantees by the appellant was a shareholder activity aimed at protecting its investment, not a service warranting a fee.3. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(Va) Read with Section 2(24)(x) Regarding Employees' Contribution to ESI/PF:The Revenue's next substantive ground involved the disallowance of employees' contributions to ESI/PF under Section 36(1)(Va) read with Section 2(24)(x). The CIT(A) found that the appellant had paid the contributions before the due date for filing the return, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions in CIT vs Vijay Shree Ltd. and CIT vs Coal India Ltd. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.4. Disallowance under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D Regarding Expenses Incurred in Relation to Exempt Income:The final issue in the latter appeal concerned the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses related to exempt income. The CIT(A) reversed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO), noting that the appellant had not derived any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The CIT(A) relied on the Madras High Court's decision in Redington (India) Ltd. vs ACIT and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ashika Global Securities Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed both Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all substantive grounds. The judgments emphasized the correct application of LIBOR rates for foreign currency loans, the non-applicability of transfer pricing adjustments for corporate guarantees, the timely payment of employees' contributions to ESI/PF, and the non-applicability of Section 14A disallowance in the absence of exempt income.