Cross-objection delay, head-office interest taxability, and transfer pricing comparability rules upheld in ITAT analysis.

A delayed cross-objection filed after more than 1,212 days was treated as time-barred, but the respondent's right under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules to support the impugned order on any decided ground was held maintainable. On the tax issues, interest remitted by an Indian branch to its head office was held not chargeable in India, so no TDS arose under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not stand. The related transfer pricing adjustments on interest, liaison services, and agency services were examined through functional comparability and operating-margin analysis, and the appellate recomputations were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cross-objection filed with inordinate delay could be entertained and whether the assessee could support the order under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules; (ii) whether interest paid by the Indian branch to its head office was liable to tax deduction at source and whether the corresponding interest income of the head office was taxable in India; (iii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest paid to the head office was sustainable; (iv) whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of liaison services was correctly restricted by reworking the comparables and operating margins; and (v) whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of agency services for precious metal transactions was correctly recomputed by the first appellate authority.

Issue (i): Whether the cross-objection filed with inordinate delay could be entertained and whether the assessee could support the order under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules.

Analysis: The cross-objection was filed with a delay of more than 1212 days and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. The withdrawal of the cross-objection was accepted and the cross-objection itself could not survive. Separately, Rule 27 permits a respondent to support the impugned order on any ground decided against it without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objection, and that plea was held maintainable.

Conclusion: The cross-objection was rejected as time-barred, but the assessee's plea under Rule 27 was admitted.

Issue (ii): Whether interest paid by the Indian branch to its head office was liable to tax deduction at source and whether the corresponding interest income of the head office was taxable in India.

Analysis: The applicable treaty position and the cited High Court ruling were applied to hold that the interest remittance to the head office was not chargeable in India for the purpose of section 195. Once no tax was deductible at source, disallowance under section 40(a)(i) could not be made. The same reasoning also governed the taxability of the head office's interest income in India, which was held to be outside Indian tax charge.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest paid to the head office was sustainable.

Analysis: The first appellate authority's view that Reuters/LIBOR rates represented the arithmetical mean of interbank rates and that the assessee was entitled to the tolerance range under the proviso to section 92C(2) was accepted. No infirmity was found in the computation or in the deletion of the adjustment.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on interest was deleted and the Revenue's ground was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of liaison services was correctly restricted by reworking the comparables and operating margins.

Analysis: The rejection of the incomparable merchant banker as a comparable was upheld because its functional profile differed materially from the assessee's liaison activity. The recomputation of operating margins of the remaining comparables by including interest and finance items as operating in nature for financial service entities was also sustained, and the revised mark-up adopted by the first appellate authority was found reasonable.

Conclusion: The restriction of the liaison-services adjustment was upheld against the Revenue.

Issue (v): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of agency services for precious metal transactions was correctly recomputed by the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The first appellate authority's allocation of personnel cost, administrative cost, and support cost was upheld. The employee time-allocation basis, exclusion of severance pay from the agency cost pool, and allocation of indirect support expenses to the bullion division were found proper. The revised arm's length value and the partial relief granted on that basis were sustained.

Conclusion: The recomputed arm's length price for agency services was upheld and the Revenue's ground was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the central interest-remittance issue and the Revenue failed on all transfer pricing grounds, resulting in no surviving interference with the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where interest remitted by an Indian branch to its head office is not chargeable to tax in India, no tax deduction at source arises under section 195 and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) cannot be sustained; transfer pricing comparables must also reflect true functional comparability and operating character of items included in margin computation.

---