Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on interest, transfer pricing adjustments

The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds, including disallowance of interest expenditure, addition of interest income, transfer pricing adjustments related to interest expense, liaison services, and agency services for precious metal transactions. The order was pronounced on 27/02/2023.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in filing cross-objection by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of interest expenditure and addition of interest income.
3. Transfer pricing adjustment related to interest expense.
4. Transfer pricing adjustment related to Liaison Services.
5. Transfer pricing adjustment related to Agency Services for precious metal transactions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Cross-Objection by the Assessee:

The cross-objection filed by the assessee was delayed by more than 1212 days. The assessee expressed its inability to file an affidavit due to the closure of its business activity in India and sought withdrawal of the cross-objection. The revenue opposed the admission of the cross-objection due to the inordinate delay and lack of affidavit. The tribunal noted the inability to justify the delay and dismissed the cross-objection as barred by limitation. However, the tribunal admitted the ground raised by the assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules for adjudication, allowing the assessee to support the impugned order on any grounds decided against it.

2. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure and Addition of Interest Income:

The assessee, a branch of a foreign bank, paid interest to its Head Office (HO) in Germany and claimed it as a deduction. The AO disallowed this deduction under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act due to non-withholding of tax under Section 195 and added the interest income to the total income of the assessee branch. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance but upheld the addition of interest income. The tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's decision in ABN AMRO Bank Vs CIT, which held that the Indian branch was not obligated to deduct tax at source on interest paid to the HO and that the interest income of the HO was not taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's ground under Rule 27, directing the AO to delete the addition of interest income.

3. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Related to Interest Expense:

The TPO made a transfer pricing adjustment to the interest expense paid to the HO, determining the arm's length interest rate based on Reuters data. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that Reuters/LIBOR rates represent the arithmetic mean of interest rates and thus the assessee was entitled to a variation of 5% as per the proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's ground.

4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Related to Liaison Services:

The assessee charged an 8% mark-up on costs incurred for liaison services rendered to the HO and Overseas Branches. The TPO identified three comparables with higher profit rates and made a transfer pricing adjustment. The CIT(A) rejected one comparable and re-computed the profit rates for the remaining two, determining an appropriate mark-up rate of 15%. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's ground.

5. Transfer Pricing Adjustment Related to Agency Services for Precious Metal Transactions:

The assessee provided agency services for precious metal transactions and charged an 8% mark-up on costs. The TPO disputed the cost allocation and made a transfer pricing adjustment. The CIT(A) re-worked the allocation of personnel, administrative, and support costs, partially allowing the assessee's claim. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s re-allocation and determination of the arm's length price, dismissing the revenue's ground.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed both the revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27/02/2023.

---