2020 (1) TMI 127 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal allows appeal, deletes interest addition. Emphasizes working capital context.

M/s. Target Sourcing Services India Private Limited Versus ACIT, Circle 25 (1), New Delhi.

The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal ordering the deletion of the addition of Rs. 19,79,520/- on account of interest on outstanding ... TP Adjustment - delayed payment of outstanding receivables from AE - working capital adjustments - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly impact of working capital of tested party vis-a-vis its comparables has been factored in the profitability of the taxpayer which is otherwise less than working capital adjusted of margin of comparable, there is no need to impute the interest on outstanding receivables from AE. When assessee is a debt free company imputation of interest on account of blocked funds that is delay in making payment of outstanding receivables from AE is not warranted. Moreover, when undisputedly the taxpayer has earned higher operating profit to operating cost (OP/OC), margin as compared to comparable companies further proposed addition falls within +/- 3% range allowed under the Indian Transfer Pricing Regulation. As relying on KUSUM HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. [2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the considered view that when the taxpayer has already taken into account the impact of outstanding receivables on profitability while making working capital adjustments of the taxpayer vis-a-vis its comparables which is less than the working capital adjusted margin of the comparables any further adjustment on account of delayed payment of outstanding receivables from AE would distort the entire picture of re-characterization the transactions. In other words, transactions as to outstanding receivables cannot be re-characterized as loan deemed to be advanced by the taxpayer to its AE. We are of the considered view that AO/DRP have erred in making addition on account of interest on outstanding receivables from AE, hence ordered to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Adjustment of Rs. 19,79,520/- for outstanding receivables re-characterized as a loan to Associated Enterprise (AE).2. Jurisdictional error in the reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) without recording necessary reasons.3. Non-compliance with conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act by TPO/AO.4. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D and withdrawal of interest under Section 244A of the Act.Detailed Analysis:Ground No. 1: Adjustment for Outstanding ReceivablesThe primary issue was the adjustment of Rs. 19,79,520/- for outstanding receivables re-characterized as a loan to AE. The TPO treated these outstanding receivables as international transactions and benchmarked them separately, relying on the amendment to section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The taxpayer argued that the working capital adjustment already accounted for the impact of receivables on profitability, making further imputation of interest unwarranted. It was also contended that the taxpayer, being a debt-free company, should not have interest imputed on blocked funds. The Tribunal found that the working capital adjustment indeed absorbed the impact of outstanding receivables on profitability, as demonstrated by the taxpayer's submissions and supported by the case of Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the transactions regarding outstanding receivables could not be re-characterized as loans and ordered the deletion of the addition of Rs. 19,79,520/-.Ground No. 2: Jurisdictional Error in Reference to TPOThe taxpayer claimed a jurisdictional error as the AO did not record any reasons in the assessment order for referring the matter to the TPO. This ground was dismissed as it was not pressed during the course of arguments.Ground No. 3: Non-compliance with Section 92C(3)The taxpayer argued that the TPO/AO did not satisfy the conditions set out in section 92C(3) of the Act while making the adjustment. This ground was deemed consequential and required no specific findings.Ground No. 4: Charging and Withdrawal of InterestThe taxpayer contended the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D and the withdrawal of interest under Section 244A of the Act. This ground was considered premature and required no specific findings.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition of Rs. 19,79,520/- on account of interest on outstanding receivables from AE, determining Ground No. 1 in favor of the taxpayer. Grounds No. 2, 3, and 4 were dismissed or deemed not requiring specific findings. The decision emphasized the importance of considering working capital adjustments and the context of transactions rather than re-characterizing them in isolation.