Deferred receivables are independent international transactions; benchmark with interest at LIBOR+2%; AO/TPO to rework; s.14A, s.37(1), s.115JAA

ITAT BANGALORE - AT held that deferred receivables from associated enterprises constitute an independent international transaction and must be benchmarked; interest on outstanding receivable to be computed at LIBOR + 2%. Transfer-pricing adjustment is to be confined to international transactions only and the AO/TPO must rework adjustments accordingly. Disallowance under s.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not warranted on the facts. Expenses for product registration and recurring licence/annual fees were held revenue in nature and allowable u/s 37(1). The assessee is entitled to full MAT credit under s.115JAA.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Interest on Delayed Receivables
2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Confinement to International Transactions
3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act
4. Treatment of Product Registration Expenditure as Capital in Nature
5. Non-Grant of Appropriate Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) Credit

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Interest on Delayed Receivables (Ground 6(d)):
The TPO determined a TP adjustment of Rs.16,99,773 as notional interest for delayed receivables from AEs. The DRP directed the TPO to recompute the interest considering the credit period in the invoices, reducing the interest to Rs.8,91,560, adopting LIBOR + 300/400 basis points. The assessee argued that the rate should be LIBOR + 2%, citing the Bombay High Court judgment in CIT v. Aurionpro Solutions Limited and ITAT Bangalore's decision in Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AO to adopt LIBOR + 2% for calculating the interest on outstanding receivables, following the precedent set in Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, Ground 6(d) was allowed.

2. Transfer Pricing Adjustment - Confinement to International Transactions (Ground 7):
The assessee contended that TP adjustments should be restricted to international transactions, which constituted 29.85% of total revenue. The Tribunal agreed, referencing CIT v. Phoenix Mecano (India) Pvt. Ltd. and other Tribunal decisions, emphasizing that TP adjustments should only apply to international transactions with AEs. The TPO was directed to rework the TP adjustment accordingly. Thus, Ground 7 was allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act (Ground 10):
The AO made an additional disallowance of Rs.47,69,154 under Section 14A, invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii), without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo moto disallowance of Rs.15,48,462. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Maxopp Investments Ltd. v. CIT. Additionally, the assessee had sufficient own funds, and borrowed funds were not used for investments. Thus, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, allowing Ground 10.

4. Treatment of Product Registration Expenditure as Capital in Nature (Ground 11):
The AO treated product registration expenses of Rs.1,03,06,348 as capital in nature. The Tribunal referenced its own decision in the assessee's case for previous years, where similar expenses were allowed as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). The Tribunal reiterated that these recurring expenses were necessary for business operations and did not result in acquiring new assets. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the claim, treating the expenses as revenue in nature, thus allowing Ground 11.

5. Non-Grant of Appropriate Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) Credit (Ground 12):
The assessee argued that the AO did not grant the full MAT credit available under Section 115JAA. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the appropriate MAT credit as per law. Therefore, Ground 12 was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions issued for each ground raised by the assessee. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning for each decision, ensuring compliance with relevant legal precedents and statutory provisions.

---