Tribunal directs benchmarking credit using average cost of funds available.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to benchmark the independent international transaction of allowing extra credit using the average cost of total funds available to the assessee. Other issues raised by the assessee were not specifically addressed in the judgment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) by the Assessing Officer (AO).
2. Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of Rs. 14,42,77,085/-.
3. Rejection of comparables and TP analysis for software development services.
4. Adoption of inappropriate filters and comparables.
5. Adjustments for enterprise and transactional level differences.
6. TP adjustment on account of interest on receivables.
7. Non-allowance of +/-5% range benefit under section 92C(2).
8. Levy of interest under section 234B.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reference to TPO:
The assessee contended that the AO erred in referring the matter to the TPO for determining the arm's length price without demonstrating the necessity and expediency of such a reference. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed the AO’s action. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs. 14,42,77,085/-:
The assessee argued that the lower authorities erred in making a TP adjustment without demonstrating a motive for tax evasion and without proper computation under Chapter X. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

3. Rejection of Comparables and TP Analysis for Software Development Services:
The assessee challenged the rejection of comparables selected and the TP analysis undertaken on grounds such as not adopting profits before depreciation, interest, and taxes as the profit level indicator, and not considering weighted average margins. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

4. Adoption of Inappropriate Filters and Comparables:
The assessee argued that the authorities adopted inappropriate filters like a one-sided turnover filter and included companies that were not comparable in terms of functions, risks, assets, size, turnover, and margins. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

5. Adjustments for Enterprise and Transactional Level Differences:
The assessee contended that proper adjustments for differences between the appellant and comparable companies were not made, including working capital adjustments and depreciation adjustments. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

6. TP Adjustment on Account of Interest on Receivables:
The primary issue argued by the assessee was the TP adjustment of Rs. 932,96,476/- on account of interest on receivables. The assessee argued that working capital adjustment was already made, and no additional adjustment should be made for interest on receivables, citing various tribunal orders and a Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court judgment was not directly applicable as it was not the jurisdictional High Court and considered other tribunal orders.

The tribunal concluded that allowing extra credit beyond the agreed period of 30 days constitutes an independent international transaction requiring separate benchmarking. The tribunal directed the AO to benchmark this transaction using the average cost of the total funds available to the assessee as the internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP).

7. Non-Allowance of +/-5% Range Benefit:
The assessee argued that the authorities erred in not allowing the benefit of the +/-5% range prescribed under section 92C(2). The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

8. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:
The assessee contested the levy of interest under section 234B amounting to Rs. 2,58,30,639/-, arguing that it was not leviable and the computed amount was excessive. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to benchmark the independent international transaction of allowing extra credit using the average cost of the total funds available to the assessee. Other issues raised by the assessee were not specifically addressed in the judgment.

---