Transfer pricing on amended outbound loans, section 80IA pricing, and section 14A book-profit treatment shaped mixed tribunal outcomes.

Repeatedly amended outbound loan terms to the Mauritius associated enterprise were treated as a long-term, higher-risk arrangement, so floating LIBOR benchmarking was rejected and an arm's length rate of 6.5% applied with credit for interest already offered to tax; separate interest on overdue receivables was not sustained. For power conversion charges, the assessee's open-market benchmark was accepted under the section 80IA market value framework, and the SBU-II deduction was upheld. Section 14A disallowance was confined to exempt-income years and was not carried into section 115JB book-profit computation. Depreciation on capitalised expenditure linked to the alleged contractor was disallowed, while the limitation cross-objections were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether interest on loans advanced to the Mauritius associated enterprise could be benchmarked on a floating LIBOR basis or required a fixed rate with appropriate spread; (ii) whether interest on overdue receivables from the associated enterprise warranted a separate transfer-pricing adjustment; (iii) whether the specified domestic transaction relating to power conversion charges and the deduction under section 80IA were correctly dealt with; (iv) whether disallowance under section 14A and its impact on book profits under section 115JB were sustainable; (v) whether depreciation claim on capitalised expenditure relating to M/s Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd. was allowable; and (vi) whether the cross-objections challenging limitation under sections 153 and 144C succeeded.

Issue: whether interest on loans advanced to the Mauritius associated enterprise could be benchmarked on a floating LIBOR basis or required a fixed rate with appropriate spread.

Analysis: The loan arrangement underwent repeated amendments, enhancement of exposure, and progressive deferment of interest payment dates, with no actual interest receipt for a prolonged period. On these facts, the contractual floating-rate structure was treated as unworkable in substance, the earlier year orders were held not fully applicable, and the transaction was required to be benchmarked as a long-term, higher-risk outbound loan. Drawing guidance from safe-harbour principles, the arm's length rate was fixed at 6.5% and credit was to be given for interest already offered to tax.

Conclusion: The assessee's challenge to the floating-to-fixed benchmarking failed, and the revenue's adjustment was sustained in principle with the rate determined at 6.5%.

Issue: whether interest on overdue receivables from the associated enterprise warranted a separate transfer-pricing adjustment.

Analysis: This issue was treated as consequential to the loan-interest benchmarking. Once the loan interest was re-determined on a fixed-rate basis, no further independent interest was warranted on the same receivable stream.

Conclusion: The separate adjustment for overdue receivables was not sustained.

Issue: whether the specified domestic transaction relating to power conversion charges and the deduction under section 80IA were correctly dealt with.

Analysis: The eligible unit supplied converted power from fuel provided by the group entity and charged conversion charges. The price was compared with the rate at which power was sold to another captive user, and the legislative scheme under section 80IA(8), read with the explanation defining market value, permitted adoption of an open-market benchmark where such value was ascertainable. The Tribunal held that the assessee's method was acceptable on the facts and rejected the revenue's contention that the TPO's lower processing-cost benchmark should apply. The deduction under section 80IA for the SBU-II unit was also upheld on the basis that the claim had already been allowed in earlier years and no change in facts or law was shown.

Conclusion: The revenue's challenge to the power conversion pricing and the SBU-II deduction failed.

Issue: whether disallowance under section 14A and its impact on book profits under section 115JB were sustainable.

Analysis: For years where no exempt income was earned, no disallowance beyond the assessee's suo motu disallowance was warranted. For the years where exempt income existed, only investments yielding exempt income were to be considered for the computation. While computing book profits, the section 14A disallowance could not be imported into section 115JB computation.

Conclusion: The revenue's challenge was rejected, with the disallowance confined as directed and no section 14A addition permitted for book-profit computation.

Issue: whether depreciation claim on capitalised expenditure relating to M/s Gremach Infrastructure Equipments & Projects Ltd. was allowable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the expenditure had been supported by an accommodation-entry admission and that no genuine work execution was established for the relevant year. The earlier year orders were distinguished because the decisive factual material before the Tribunal now included the adverse admission by the alleged contractor's director. The capitalised amount was therefore treated as not allowable for depreciation purposes and was brought to tax.

Conclusion: The depreciation claim was disallowed and the revenue succeeded on this issue.

Issue: whether the cross-objections challenging limitation under sections 153 and 144C succeeded.

Analysis: The controversy on the inter-play between the limitation provisions and the DRP procedure was noted to be pending authoritative resolution before the Supreme Court, including in light of divergent views. In that situation, no conclusive finding on merits was recorded and the issue was left to be governed by the final pronouncement of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The cross-objections were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals resulted in mixed success, with the revenue substantially succeeding on the loan-interest and depreciation issues, while the assessee retained relief on certain transfer-pricing, section 80IA, and section 14A-related issues; the cross-objections were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a shareholder loan is repeatedly amended so that tenure is extended and interest payment is deferred for years, the true nature of the arrangement may be treated as a long-term high-risk transaction and benchmarked on substance rather than the original floating-rate form; open-market price may be adopted for section 80IA where such market value is otherwise ascertainable, and section 14A disallowance cannot be carried into section 115JB computation.

---