Tribunal Upholds Transfer Pricing, Adjusts Interest Rate, and Treats Forex Loss as Business Loss 'sLengthPrice

The Tribunal upheld the applicability of transfer pricing provisions to the transactions with the subsidiary. It confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,34,28,873/- as Arm's Length Price of loan interest, rejecting the argument of quasi-capital treatment. The Tribunal allowed the adoption of LIBOR+2% for the Arm's Length Price adjustment, overturning the 8.7% rate decision. It dismissed the disallowance under Section 35D and treated the forex derivative loss as a business loss. The non-allowance of exchange rate fluctuation loss was not pressed and dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the assessee on specific issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Transfer Pricing provisions.
2. Addition of Rs. 3,34,28,873/- on account of Arm's Length Price (ALP) of loan interest.
3. Adoption of 8.7% interest rate for ALP instead of LIBOR+2%.
4. Disallowance of Rs. 15,02,592/- under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act.
5. Treatment of forex derivative loss amounting to Rs. 57,76,604/-.
6. Non-allowance of exchange rate fluctuation loss of Rs. 68,96,702/-.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Transfer Pricing Provisions:
The assessee contested the applicability of transfer pricing provisions to its transactions with its 100% subsidiary, Soma Textile FZE. The Tribunal noted that the issue was already covered against the assessee in principle by a previous decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal upheld that the provisions of transfer pricing were applicable.

2. Addition of Rs. 3,34,28,873/- on Account of ALP of Loan Interest:
The assessee argued that the amount given to Soma Textiles FZE was a contribution towards capital or quasi-equity capital, and thus, the addition of Rs. 3,34,28,873/- based on the findings of the Additional CIT (TPO) was incorrect. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and clarified that quasi-capital loans are treated differently than normal loan transactions. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's argument that the ALP of such quasi-capital loans should be nil. The Tribunal confirmed the stand of the authorities below and dismissed the assessee's grounds on this issue.

3. Adoption of 8.7% Interest Rate for ALP Instead of LIBOR+2%:
The Tribunal noted that the TPO had adopted an interest rate of 8.7% for the ALP, considering an additional 2% for the higher risk in lending to the subsidiary. The Tribunal found this approach unjustified, as no actual guarantee was given, and there was no material change in the facts and circumstances from the previous assessment year where LIBOR+2% was adopted. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's plea to adopt LIBOR+2% for the ALP adjustment and allowed the related ground.

4. Disallowance of Rs. 15,02,592/- Under Section 35D of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee claimed deduction under Section 35D for GDR issue expenses. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. and concluded that such expenses are capital in nature and not eligible for amortization under Section 35D, as they were not incurred for the extension of the undertaking or setting up a new industrial undertaking. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds on this issue.

5. Treatment of Forex Derivative Loss Amounting to Rs. 57,76,604/-:
The assessee claimed a loss on derivative transactions as a business loss. The Assessing Officer treated it as a speculative loss under Section 43(5) and disallowed the deduction. The Tribunal found that speculative transactions incidental to the main business should not be treated separately as speculation business. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's plea, noting that the transactions were specific hedging transactions against foreign exchange obligations and directed the deletion of the disallowance.

6. Non-allowance of Exchange Rate Fluctuation Loss of Rs. 68,96,702/-:
The assessee did not press this grievance, and the Tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal upholding the assessee's plea on the adoption of LIBOR+2% for ALP adjustment and the treatment of forex derivative loss, while dismissing other grounds.

---