Transfer pricing recharacterisation limits: share subscription, interest disallowance, and corporate guarantee benchmarking all rejected.

A genuine subscription to redeemable preference shares of an associated enterprise could not be recharacterised as an interest-free loan for transfer pricing purposes absent material showing sham or exceptional circumstances, so notional interest adjustment was not sustainable. Advances to related concerns were supported by sufficient interest-free funds, and the mixed-funds principle meant disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified. Corporate guarantee commission could not be benchmarked against bank guarantees because the two instruments differ in nature, risk and commercial setting, so the higher transfer pricing adjustment was rejected. The Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the subscription to redeemable preference shares of an associated enterprise could be recharacterised as an interest-free loan for transfer pricing purposes and notional interest brought to tax under Section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified in respect of advances made to related concerns; (iii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee commission was required to be sustained at a higher rate.

Issue (i): Whether the subscription to redeemable preference shares of an associated enterprise could be recharacterised as an interest-free loan for transfer pricing purposes and notional interest brought to tax under Section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The transaction on record was one of purchase and sale of shares of an associated enterprise. No material was brought to show that the arrangement was sham or that exceptional circumstances existed to disregard the apparent form of the transaction. In the absence of such material, the transfer pricing authority could not substitute a loan character for a share transaction and compute notional interest.

Conclusion: The adjustment on account of notional interest was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified in respect of advances made to related concerns.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds from which the advances were made. On that factual foundation, the principle governing use of mixed funds applied, and no basis remained to disallow interest on the footing that borrowed funds were diverted for non-business purposes.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest was not warranted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee commission was required to be sustained at a higher rate.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that a corporate guarantee stands on a different footing from a bank guarantee and restricted the commission to 1%. The comparison with bank guarantees was held to be inappropriate because the nature, risk profile, and commercial setting of the two guarantees differ materially.

Conclusion: The higher adjustment made by the transfer pricing authority was not justified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose on the issues raised, and the Revenue's appeal did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A genuine share transaction cannot be recharacterised as a loan for transfer pricing purposes in the absence of material showing sham or exceptional circumstances, and interest or guarantee adjustments must rest on the factual foundation and commercial character of the underlying transaction.

---