ITAT allows interest deduction for subsidiary investment, remits multiple tax issues for re-examination

ITAT Chennai ruled on multiple issues in this tax assessment case. The tribunal admitted additional grounds regarding DDT levy, noting the assessee had already remitted DDT on 06.10.2015 as reflected in Form 26AS. For corporate guarantee fee, the tribunal directed AO/TPO to compute fee at 0.5% of total corporate guarantee given to associated enterprises. The tribunal allowed interest expenditure deduction for investment in 100% subsidiary company, finding commercial expediency existed. Several issues including TDS on professional fees, drilling services management fees, tax credit denial, forex loss disallowance, and MAT credit were remitted back to AO for re-examination following previous tribunal decisions. The tribunal upheld disallowance under section 14A but directed deletion of such disallowance from book profit computation under section 115JB. Interest receipts addition and expense disallowance issues were also remitted for verification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Upward adjustment of ALP for corporate guarantee fee.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii).
3. Disallowance of professional and consultancy fee paid to non-residents u/s.40(a)(i).
4. Disallowance of drilling services & management fees paid to non-residents for failure to deduct TDS u/s.195.
5. Denial of tax credit u/s.90 for taxes paid in Singapore.
6. Disallowance of loss on forward contracts.
7. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D.
8. Addition towards interest receipts on the basis of Form 26AS.
9. Disallowance of expenses u/s.37(1).
10. Disallowance of MAT credit.
11. Levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Upward Adjustment of ALP for Corporate Guarantee Fee:
The AO made a TP adjustment of Rs.64,26,250/- towards corporate guarantee fee at 1% on the total corporate guarantee outstanding. The assessee argued that the corporate guarantee does not result in any quantifiable benefit to the AEs and should not be considered an international transaction. The Tribunal, following the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16, directed the AO to compute the corporate guarantee fee at 0.5% of the total corporate guarantee given to their AEs.

2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii):
The AO disallowed Rs.82,40,26,367/- on the ground that the assessee diverted interest-bearing funds to invest in its subsidiary, M/s.Aban Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. The assessee contended that the investment was for commercial expediency. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decisions, remitted the issue back to the AO to verify if the investment was made for maintaining controlling interest and to decide accordingly.

3. Disallowance of Professional and Consultancy Fee Paid to Non-residents u/s.40(a)(i):
The AO disallowed payments to non-residents for professional and consultancy services due to non-deduction of TDS, considering them as fees for technical services. The Tribunal, following its decision in the assessee's case for AY 2015-16, remitted the issue back to the AO to examine the payments in light of the DTAA between India and UAE and decide afresh.

4. Disallowance of Drilling Services & Management Fees Paid to Non-residents for Failure to Deduct TDS u/s.195:
The AO disallowed Rs.10,87,63,665/- paid to M/s.Haledon International Corporation, Dubai, treating it as fees for technical services. The Tribunal, consistent with its earlier decisions, remitted the issue back to the AO to reconsider the matter in light of the DTAA and decide accordingly.

5. Denial of Tax Credit u/s.90 for Taxes Paid in Singapore:
The AO denied tax credit of Rs.5,97,27,171/- for taxes paid in Singapore due to lack of evidence that the interest income was received in excess of the interest expenditure. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, remitted the issue back to the AO to re-examine the claim in light of the Tribunal's directions for earlier years.

6. Disallowance of Loss on Forward Contracts:
The AO disallowed the loss on forward contracts, treating them as speculative transactions. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions, remitted the issue back to the AO to reconsider the matter in light of the decision in M/s.Essilor India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT.

7. Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D:
The AO disallowed Rs.6,11,500/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for expenses related to exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under normal provisions but directed the AO to delete the addition to book profit computed u/s.115JB, following the ITAT Special Bench decision in M/s.Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT.

8. Addition Towards Interest Receipts on the Basis of Form 26AS:
The AO made additions based on Form 26AS due to differences in reported interest income. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the reconciliation provided by the assessee and decide accordingly.

9. Disallowance of Expenses u/s.37(1):
The AO disallowed Rs.43,755/- based on the Audit Report, treating it as a penalty. The assessee claimed it was interest on delayed reversal of service tax credit. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the nature of the expenses and decide accordingly.

10. Disallowance of MAT Credit:
The AO denied MAT credit for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16, stating that tax payable under normal provisions was higher. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to re-examine the claim considering the relief allowed by the ITAT.

11. Levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT):
The AO levied DDT, claiming the tax was not paid within the specified period. The assessee contended that DDT was paid and reflected in Form 26AS. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the payment and delete the addition if the tax was already paid.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with multiple issues remitted back to the AO for further verification and reconsideration in light of the Tribunal's directions and earlier decisions.

---