Transfer pricing and section 14A principles: long-term loan benchmarking, exempt-income restriction, and MAT relief in mixed ITAT findings.

Transfer pricing on interest receivable from associated enterprises was examined in the context of repeated loan amendments, extended tenure and deferred interest, leading the Tribunal to treat the arrangement as a long-term loan for benchmarking purposes, while remanding the matter because no proper comparable long-term loan data had been used. Section 14A disallowance was confined to investments that actually yielded exempt income, and no disallowance survived where no exempt income was earned; the MAT adjustment under section 115JB was also deleted. By contrast, section 80IA deduction was computed on the eligible business as a whole under section 80IA(5), not on a unit-wise basis. Claims for write-off of stores, duplicate gratuity and feasibility report expenditure were remanded or partly rejected, with feasibility expenditure treated as capital in nature.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest receivable from associated enterprises could be sustained by substituting the assessee's floating LIBOR-based benchmark with a fixed-rate benchmark and whether the transaction had to be treated as a long-term loan; (ii) whether disallowance under section 14A could be restricted to investments yielding exempt income and whether any disallowance could survive where no exempt income was earned; (iii) whether disallowance under section 14A could be added back while computing book profit under section 115JB; (iv) whether deduction under section 80IA was to be computed unit-wise or on the aggregate profits of the eligible business; and (v) whether the claims relating to write-off of non-moving stores and spares, gratuity mistakenly offered twice, and expenditure on feasibility report could be finally sustained.

Issue (i): whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest receivable from associated enterprises could be sustained by substituting the assessee's floating LIBOR-based benchmark with a fixed-rate benchmark and whether the transaction had to be treated as a long-term loan.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal view accepting LIBOR-based benchmarking was held not to govern the year under appeal because the loan arrangement had undergone repeated amendments, the tenure had been extended substantially, and the first interest payment had been deferred over a much longer period. In these circumstances, the transaction was treated as having the character of a long-term loan with higher risk, and the assessee's contention that only floating LIBOR should apply was not accepted. At the same time, the fixed-rate benchmarking adopted by the transfer pricing authorities was not approved as a final method because no proper comparable long-term loan transactions were shown to have been used.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing matter was restored to the assessing authority and the transfer pricing officer for fresh benchmarking in accordance with law; the assessee obtained only statistical relief on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether disallowance under section 14A could be restricted to investments yielding exempt income and whether any disallowance could survive where no exempt income was earned.

Analysis: The Court accepted the principle that only investments which actually yielded exempt income were to be considered for computing the disallowance. It also accepted that where no exempt income was earned during the relevant year, no disallowance under section 14A could be made. The later insertion/clarification by the Finance Act, 2022 was not treated as retrospective for the purpose of the controversy before the Court.

Conclusion: The section 14A disallowance was restricted on the exempt-income-yielding investment basis in one appeal, and deleted where no exempt income was earned in the other appeal; the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): whether disallowance under section 14A could be added back while computing book profit under section 115JB.

Analysis: Following the settled view in the assessee's own case, the adjustment made by importing section 14A disallowance into the computation of book profit was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The addition to book profit under section 115JB was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether deduction under section 80IA was to be computed unit-wise or on the aggregate profits of the eligible business.

Analysis: The Court applied section 80IA(5) and the Supreme Court's interpretation that the eligible business is to be treated as the only source of income for computing the quantum of deduction. On that basis, the profit of the eligible business as a whole, and not a fragmented approach ignoring the statutory computation mechanism, governed the deduction claim.

Conclusion: The deduction claim under section 80IA was rejected as computed by the assessee, and the lower authorities were upheld.

Issue (v): whether the claims relating to write-off of non-moving stores and spares, gratuity mistakenly offered twice, and expenditure on feasibility report could be finally sustained.

Analysis: The write-off and gratuity claims were not rejected on merits but were restored for fresh examination because the claims required verification and could not be denied merely for want of a revised return. The feasibility report expenditure was held to be capital in character, but the assessee was permitted to establish eligibility, if any, under section 35D; the alternative claim of short-term capital loss was not accepted.

Conclusion: These matters were sent back for fresh consideration to the assessing authority, except that the alternative short-term capital loss claim was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with mixed results: the assessee succeeded on the section 14A and MAT issues, failed on the section 80IA claim, obtained remand on the transfer pricing and certain other claims, and received overall partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contractual and actual course of a loan transaction shows substantial extension of tenor and deferred interest over time, the transaction may no longer be benchmarked as a simple short-term LIBOR-linked loan; and, for section 14A, disallowance is confined to investments yielding exempt income, while no disallowance survives where no exempt income is earned.

---