ITAT deletes transfer pricing adjustments on ECB interest, royalty payments, and trade receivables interest

ITAT Hyderabad ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple transfer pricing adjustments. The tribunal deleted TP adjustments on ECB interest payments at LIBOR+500 basis points, finding them at arm's length based on precedent. Royalty payment adjustments were also deleted, holding that TPO's benefit test determining ALP at nil was arbitrary when payments were made under RBI-approved agreements. Interest adjustments on trade receivables were deleted after applying netting principle, as payables exceeded receivables substantially. The tribunal remanded CPC processing issues to AO for verification of suo-moto disallowances and directed compliance with SC precedent on employee contribution delays.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals pertain primarily to the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) under transfer pricing regulations for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The key issues include:

1. Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making adjustments to the interest paid on External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) from Associated Enterprises (AEs), including the appropriate benchmark interest rate to be applied.

2. Whether the royalty payments made to the AE for use of technical know-how and trademarks were at arm's length and whether the ALP adjustment made by the TPO/AO was justified.

3. Whether the TPO/AO was justified in making transfer pricing adjustments on the interest on outstanding trade receivables from AEs, including the question of whether interest on receivables constitutes a separate international transaction and the appropriateness of netting payables against receivables.

4. Various procedural and substantive issues related to the application of Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning the computation of ALP and the adherence to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).

5. Additional issues relating to various disallowances and additions made by the AO/CPC during assessment proceedings, including compliance with DRP directions and the applicability of specific provisions of the Act concerning exempt income, disallowances under sections 37, 40A(3), 43B, 40(a)(ia), and payments related to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance.

6. Jurisdictional and limitation issues concerning the validity of assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act, vis-`a-vis the time limits prescribed under Section 153.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Interest on External Commercial Borrowings (ECB)

Legal Framework and Precedents: The ALP determination for interest on ECB is governed by Section 92C of the Act and related transfer pricing rules. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Master Circular No.12/2013-14 dated 01.07.2013 and RBI FED Master Direction No.5/2015-16 prescribe all-in-cost ceilings for ECB interest rates based on loan tenure. The relevant rates are LIBOR plus 500 basis points for loans exceeding five years and LIBOR plus 350 basis points for loans between three and five years. Judicial precedents, including decisions of coordinate benches of the Tribunal, have consistently held that LIBOR-based rates are the appropriate benchmark for foreign currency international transactions rather than domestic bank rates.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the loans in question (ECB-I and ECB-II) had a tenure of eight years (96 months), exceeding five years, and the assessee paid interest at LIBOR + 500 basis points, consistent with RBI guidelines. The TPO had made an adjustment by benchmarking the interest at LIBOR + 200 basis points, which was challenged. The DRP modified this to LIBOR + 250 basis points, considering the tenure as less than five years based on the period from the loan agreement date to the assessment year, which the Tribunal found arbitrary and unjustified.

Key Evidence and Findings: The loan agreements, RBI circulars, and prior assessment year orders where the same transactions were accepted at LIBOR + 500 basis points were crucial. The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions such as DCIT Vs. Devgen Seeds & Crop Technology (P.) Ltd. and other coordinate bench rulings affirming the use of LIBOR-based rates and the RBI prescribed ceilings.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the loan tenure was contractually for more than five years and there was no foreclosure or prepayment, the Tribunal held that the interest rate paid by the assessee was at arm's length. The TPO and DRP's deviation from this established position was not warranted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument regarding uncertainty about foreclosure was rejected due to lack of evidence. The assessee's contention that the RBI prescribed rate ceilings should be accepted as ALP was upheld.

Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made on interest on ECB for both assessment years.

Royalty Payment

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 92C of the Act governs ALP determination for royalty payments. The benefit test and the requirement of tangible and direct benefits for royalty payments are often considered. However, judicial precedents such as the Supreme Court decision in Radhasaomi Satsang and Tribunal decisions in Air Liquid Engineering India P. Ltd. and Aban Offshore Ltd. emphasize that legally binding agreements duly approved by regulatory authorities cannot be disregarded without cogent reasons.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The TPO and DRP rejected the royalty payment on the ground that the assessee failed to establish tangible benefits. The Tribunal found this approach arbitrary and unjustified, noting that the royalty was paid as per a valid agreement, supported by invoices and ledger entries, and had been accepted in previous years without adjustment.

Key Evidence and Findings: The royalty agreement, payment records, and prior acceptance of the arrangement were significant. The Tribunal also noted that the royalty payments were subject to withholding tax under Section 195, negating the possibility of profit shifting.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that commercial expediency and legally binding agreements cannot be lightly disturbed by tax authorities. The failure to demonstrate quantifiable benefits did not justify disregarding the agreement.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's insistence on the benefit test was rejected in light of binding precedents and the factual matrix.

Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment on royalty payments for both years.

Interest on Outstanding Trade Receivables

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 92B defines international transactions, and Section 92C governs ALP computation. The question arises whether interest on trade receivables constitutes a separate international transaction. Precedents establish that trade receivables and payables are separate transactions but may be interconnected, and notional interest adjustments should consider netting off receivables and payables where appropriate. The Tribunal's earlier orders in the assessee's own case and other decisions support netting of receivables and payables for notional interest computation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had significant payables to AEs, exceeding receivables by multiples, and no interest was charged or paid on either. The TPO's adjustment on gross receivables without considering payables was found unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that sales to AEs include embedded interest elements and that working capital adjustments account for credit terms.

Key Evidence and Findings: The outstanding balances of receivables and payables from different AEs, the absence of interest charges on payables, and the assessee's policy of not charging interest on receivables were material. Prior Tribunal orders on similar facts were relied upon.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of netting receivables and payables and rejected the notion of separate interest adjustment on receivables when payables were substantially higher and interest was not charged on either side.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that receivables and payables are separate international transactions was rejected based on the interconnected nature of transactions and consistent judicial approach.

Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on receivables for both years.

Other Additions and Disallowances

Legal Framework: Provisions of the Act relating to exempt income, disallowances under sections 37, 40A(3), 43B, 40(a)(ia), and compliance with DRP directions under Section 144C were relevant.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that certain adjustments were made by the CPC while processing returns under Section 143(1) after assessment proceedings had commenced under Section 143(2), leading to potential double additions. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's suo-moto disallowances and ensure no double taxation. The Tribunal also directed the AO to comply with DRP directions, especially regarding disallowances related to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance payments, citing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal set aside these issues for fresh adjudication by the AO after proper verification of records and compliance with DRP directions.

Conclusion: Grounds relating to these additions/disallowances were remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

Jurisdiction and Limitation Issues

Legal Framework: Sections 153 and 144C of the Act prescribe time limits for assessment completion. The question was whether assessment orders passed beyond the prescribed time under Section 153 are valid.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The issue of limitation was left open pending adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related matter. The AO was directed to decide the issue in accordance with the Supreme Court's eventual ruling.

Significant Holdings

On the issue of interest on ECB, the Tribunal held:

"Once the tenure of the loan as per the agreement between the assessee and the AE is more than 5 years, then this view of the DRP, considering the tenure of the loan from the effective date of agreement till the assessment year under consideration is highly arbitrary and unjustified. The tenure of the loan as agreed between the parties is clearly manifested from the agreement itself and therefore, there is no reason to alter the tenure of the loan, when there is no payment or foreclosure of the loan during the year under consideration."

Further, it concluded:

"Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by following the earlier decisions of this Tribunal... we hold that the interest payment of ECB @ LIBOR+500 basis is at arms length and consequently no adjustment is warranted."

On the royalty payment issue, the Tribunal emphasized:

"When the payment is made as per the legally binding agreement between the parties, which is duly approved by the RBI for the purpose of remittance of royalty, then the tax authority cannot intervene in the realm of intricacies of commercial expedience involving in the arrangements between the parties."

It held that:

"Applying the benefit test by the TPO and determining the ALP of royalty at Nil is highly arbitrary and unjustified."

Regarding interest on receivables, the Tribunal stated:

"It will also be appropriate for netting off the notional interest with respect to the debit and credit transaction with the assessee's AEs because when notional interest is charged on receivables the same should also be charged on payables."

And accordingly:

"By following the earlier order of this Tribunal, adjustment made by the TPO/AO on this account is deleted as the payable for the year under consideration is substantially higher than the receivables."

On procedural issues related to disallowances and compliance with DRP directions, the Tribunal held that the AO must verify the records to avoid double additions and comply with binding DRP directions, particularly citing the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

---