TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal orders recompute of interest on loan transaction, favoring taxpayer appeal</h1> <h3>M/s. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 2 (1), New Delhi.</h3> The Tribunal set aside the case for fresh adjudication to recompute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of interest on a loan transaction between the taxpayer ... TP Adjustment - Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transaction of the interest on loan - DRP directed the TPO to apply LIBOR plus 500 basis points given by the taxpayer’s company to its AE - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that transfer pricing adjustment qua the transaction of advancing loan by the taxpayer to its AE is to be determined at US LIBOR plus 170 basis points. Consequently, the TPO is directed to recompute the interest at US LIBOR plus 170 basis points to benchmark the international transactions qua interest on loan by the taxpayer to its AE. Consequently, the appeal filed by the taxpayer is allowed. Issues:Determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of interest on loan transaction between the taxpayer and its associated enterprises.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Setting aside the case for fresh adjudicationThe Tribunal set aside the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication to recompute the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the interest on loan transaction between the taxpayer and its associated enterprises.Issue 2: Grounds for appeal by the taxpayerThe taxpayer appealed against the impugned order passed by the AO, contending that the determination of ALP by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and AO was erroneous. The grounds of appeal included errors in determining the interest rate, failure to follow directions, and incorrect computation methods.Issue 3: Facts of the caseThe taxpayer, a software consulting firm, provided services to its New York-based associated enterprise. The taxpayer entered into various international transactions, including providing interest-free loans to its AE, which led to the dispute over the ALP of the interest on the loan.Issue 4: Previous litigation and decisionsIn the first round of litigation, the TPO determined notional interest on the loan, which was contested by the taxpayer. Subsequent decisions by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal led to the case being sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication.Issue 5: TPO's determination of interest on loanThe TPO concluded that interest on the loan between AEs should be computed on an arm's length basis, considering factors such as risk profile and industry norms. The TPO applied the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to determine the interest rate.Issue 6: DRP's directions and taxpayer's objectionsThe Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the TPO to apply a specific interest rate, which was contested by the taxpayer citing previous court decisions that favored a lower mark-up on the LIBOR rate.Issue 7: Court decisions favoring taxpayerThe taxpayer cited court decisions that rejected excessive mark-ups on interest rates and supported the use of lower mark-ups based on LIBOR rates, leading to a more favorable determination of the ALP for interest on the loan.Conclusion:Based on previous court decisions and considering the facts of the case, the Tribunal directed the TPO to recompute the interest on the loan at a lower rate of US LIBOR plus 170 basis points, allowing the taxpayer's appeal and resolving the dispute in favor of the taxpayer.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
