Appeals partly allowed, AO/TPO to re-examine issues. Adherence to legal principles stressed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the AO/TPO to re-examine the issues in light of the Tribunal's findings and to provide appropriate relief to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents in the absence of specific legislative provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Incorrect interpretation of law by CIT(A) and AO.
2. Referral of transaction to TPO.
3. Disallowance of capitalisation of interest expenditure on CCDs.
4. Determination of arm's length price by TPO.
5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
6. Relief sought by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Incorrect Interpretation of Law by CIT(A) and AO:
The appellant contended that the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, rendering them bad in law. The Tribunal did not provide a specific ruling on this general ground but addressed the specific issues raised in subsequent grounds.

2. Referral of Transaction to TPO:
The appellant argued that the AO erred in law by referring the transaction to the TPO, which did not bear on the taxability of the income for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal did not specifically address this ground but focused on the substantive issues raised regarding the TPO's findings.

3. Disallowance of Capitalisation of Interest Expenditure on CCDs:
3.1 Recharacterisation of CCDs as Equity Shares:
The TPO recharacterised the CCDs as equity shares, which the appellant argued was beyond the TPO's powers and done without providing an opportunity to the appellant. The Tribunal referred to the Mumbai Bench decision in Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT, which held that in the absence of specific thin capitalisation rules in India, recharacterisation of debt as equity is not in order.

3.2 Treatment of Interest on CCDs:
The TPO and AO disallowed the interest payment on CCDs by treating them as equity. The Tribunal held that until the date of conversion, CCDs should be considered as debt, and interest thereon should be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

3.3 Absence of Thin Capitalisation Rules:
The Tribunal reiterated that in the absence of thin capitalisation rules in India, the recharacterisation of debt as equity is not permissible, following the precedent set by the Mumbai Bench in Besix Kier Dabhol, SA vs. DDIT.

3.4 Nature of CCDs Before Conversion:
The Tribunal concluded that CCDs should be treated as debt instruments until conversion, and interest on them should be allowed as a deduction.

3.5 Application of FEMA and FDI Regulations:
The Tribunal noted that the RBI's classification of CCDs as equity for FDI purposes does not affect their treatment under the Income Tax Act for the purpose of interest deduction.

3.6 Justification of Capitalisation of Interest Expense:
The Tribunal held that the appellant was justified in capitalising the interest expense in accordance with applicable accounting standards.

3.7 Disallowance of Capitalisation and Future Deduction:
The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the capitalisation of interest expenditure on CCDs and to ensure that the appellant's claim for deduction against such capitalisation in future years is not denied.

4. Determination of Arm's Length Price by TPO:
4.1 Economic Analysis by Appellant:
The Tribunal found that the TPO and AO erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

4.2 Use of Multiple Year Data:
The Tribunal held that the TPO and AO erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data of comparable companies by the appellant.

4.3 Rejection of Comparable Identified by Appellant:
The Tribunal found that the TPO and AO erred in rejecting the comparables identified by the appellant for computing the arm's length price.

4.4 Objective Analysis of Comparable Transactions:
The Tribunal noted that the TPO failed to undertake an objective analysis for identifying comparable transactions and determining the arm's length price.

5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The appellant contended that the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal did not specifically address this ground but focused on the substantive issues raised.

6. Relief Sought by the Appellant:
The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to reconsider the issues in dispute, following the directions provided, and to grant appropriate relief to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, directing the AO/TPO to re-examine the issues in light of the Tribunal's findings and to provide appropriate relief to the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents in the absence of specific legislative provisions.

---