Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Income Tax Decisions, Dismisses Revenue Appeal

The tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s decisions on all grounds, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its subsidiaries was not considered an international transaction for Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment purposes. The adjustment proposed on interest receivables was deleted as no separate benchmark was required, and the ALP adjustment on the sale of instant coffee was deemed unjustified. The tribunal found no profit shifting to the associated enterprise and concluded that the CIT(A)'s decisions were consistent with previous rulings and the case facts.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its subsidiaries as an international transaction.
2. Interest on receivables for extra credit period allowed as an international transaction.
3. Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment on the sale of instant coffee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Corporate Guarantee:

The Revenue contended that the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its subsidiaries should be considered an international transaction. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had treated the corporate guarantee as a service and calculated an adjustment of Rs. 2.48 crores. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed, referencing previous tribunal decisions in the assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years (AY 2013-14 and 2014-15). The CIT(A) concluded that the corporate guarantee given to 100% subsidiaries does not constitute an international transaction for Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment purposes. This decision was upheld by the tribunal, which found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

2. Interest on Receivables:

The TPO proposed an adjustment of Rs. 91,96,360/- on the outstanding receivables balance of Rs. 10,21,81,783/- from the assessee’s subsidiary, suggesting that interest should be charged at 9%. The CIT(A) deleted this adjustment, again referencing the assessee’s own case for AY 2014-15, where it was determined that no separate benchmark is required on receivables when the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) is comparable. The tribunal upheld this view, noting that the assessee had received most payments within 120 days and that the facts were similar to those of the previous year. The tribunal found no justification for charging interest on receivables and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well.

3. ALP Adjustment on Sale of Instant Coffee:

The TPO suggested an ALP adjustment of Rs. 1,09,42,509/- based on the difference in prices charged to the assessee’s subsidiary compared to non-AE sales, using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. The assessee argued that the TPO should use the weighted average price of all sizes rather than individual size-wise comparisons since the product quality remained the same across different packaging sizes. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the difference in prices was only 1.49%, which is within the permissible limit of 3% as per the law. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the TPO's selective adjustment based on only two sizes (100 grams and 200 grams) was unjustified. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, concluding that there was no profit shifting to the AE.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the corporate guarantee, interest on receivables, and ALP adjustment on the sale of instant coffee. The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings were consistent with previous decisions and the facts of the case, and there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.

---