ITAT accepts internal CUP at 0.65% over external CUP for corporate guarantee transfer pricing adjustment

The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal on transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantee, finding that internal CUP at 0.65% from IDBI and ICICI banks based on actual exposure was more reliable than external CUP from other banks obtained through general inquiries. Several issues including forward contract gains, doubtful debt provisions, accounting standard adjustments, section 69C additions for unexplained sales, double taxation relief, and dividend distribution tax credit were remitted back to AO for verification with proper documentation. The section 14A disallowance was corrected from Rs. 60,35,270 to Rs. 6,35,270 due to clerical error.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Transfer Pricing Issues
2. Non-Transfer Pricing Issues

Summary:

Transfer Pricing Issues:

1. Corporate Guarantee Commission:
The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) determination of the arm's length rate of guarantee commission at 1.85% per annum, against the 0.65% per annum charged by the appellant company. The TPO used external CUP data from banks, which the appellant argued was inappropriate. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's ground, finding that the internal CUP (quotes from IDBI and ICICI banks) should be considered for benchmarking.

Non-Transfer Pricing Issues:

2. Premia Income on Forward Contracts:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added premia income to the total income without appreciating that it had already been offered to tax in earlier years. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of the appellant's claim that the income was already taxed in previous years.

3. Reversal of Provision for Doubtful Debts:
The AO did not allow the deduction claimed for the reversal of provision for doubtful debts. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the appellant's claim that the provision was disallowed in the earlier years and allow the deduction if verified.

4. Interest Credited to Profit and Loss Account:
The AO added interest credited as per Ind AS-109, which the appellant argued was merely an accounting treatment. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification.

5. Disallowance Under Section 14A:
The AO disallowed expenses related to exempt income under Rule 8D. The Tribunal corrected a clerical error in the AO's calculation, reducing the disallowance to Rs. 6,35,270 from Rs. 60,35,270.

6. Unexplained Expenditure Under Section 69C:
The AO added an amount as unexplained expenditure for prototypes and demos exported. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification.

7. Double Taxation Relief:
The AO rejected the appellant's claim for double taxation relief. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the appellant's Form 67 and related documents.

8. Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) Credit:
The AO granted partial credit for DDT. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of the appellant's claim.

General Grounds:

9. General Grounds:
The Tribunal dismissed the general grounds as they were not specific.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remitted back to the AO for verification and appropriate action.

---