Transfer pricing rules don't apply to qualifying ships under tonnage tax scheme, but guarantee commission needs proper ALP determination

The ITAT Mumbai held that transfer pricing provisions do not apply to qualifying ships under the tonnage tax scheme, following coordinate bench decisions and SC precedent in Trans Asian Shipping. The tribunal allowed relief for TP adjustments on lease loan interest from qualifying assets, noting tonnage tax provisions override general business profit computation rules. However, the corporate guarantee commission issue was remanded to TPO/AO for proper ALP determination using prescribed methods rather than adhoc rates. The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding characterization of income tax refund interest, holding it remains "income from other sources" under Section 244A, not business income, as it compensates for revenue's delay in refunding excess tax.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the applicability and interpretation of transfer pricing regulations vis-`a-vis the tonnage tax scheme, the determination of arm's length price for corporate guarantee commission, and the classification of interest income from income tax refunds. Specifically, the issues include:

1. Whether transfer pricing provisions apply to the assessee's operations carried out through qualifying ships taxed under the tonnage tax scheme, particularly regarding the disallowance of interest on lease loans from associated enterprises.

2. Whether the appellate authorities erred in not following binding precedents, including the assessee's own prior Tribunal and High Court decisions.

3. The correctness of the transfer pricing adjustment of corporate guarantee commission, including the applicable rate and method of benchmarking.

4. The proper tax treatment of interest income from income tax refunds-whether it should be treated as business income or income from other sources.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Transfer Pricing Regulations to Operations under the Tonnage Tax Scheme

Legal Framework and Precedents: The tonnage tax scheme (TTS), codified under Chapter XII-G of the Income Tax Act, provides a presumptive basis for taxation of shipping income, computed on the tonnage capacity of qualifying ships and the number of days held, as per sections 115VA and 115VG. The scheme overrides normal provisions relating to computation of income under sections 28 to 43C. Transfer pricing provisions under Chapter X (Sections 92 to 92F) regulate international transactions between associated enterprises, requiring determination of arm's length price (ALP).

Coordinate benches of the Tribunal have consistently held that transfer pricing provisions do not apply to income computed under the TTS, as the latter is a self-contained code with a fixed method of income computation independent of actual receipts or expenses. Key precedents include decisions in Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd., Shreyas Shipping Logistics Ltd., Tag Offshore, CGU Logistics Ltd., and the Supreme Court judgment in Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt Ltd.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that the TTS provides a preferential and presumptive tax regime aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of Indian shipping companies globally. Since income under TTS is computed solely on tonnage capacity and days held, actual transaction values and expenses-including those involving associated enterprises-are irrelevant for income computation. Thus, invoking transfer pricing provisions to adjust interest on lease loans for qualifying ships is contrary to the statutory scheme.

The Tribunal emphasized that Section 115VA explicitly overrides sections 28 to 43C, thereby excluding the application of transfer pricing provisions in this context. The Tribunal also highlighted that the ALP determination under Chapter X is a machinery provision without independent charging effect, as affirmed by the Bombay High Court in Vodafone Services Pvt. Ltd.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's ships MV Maithili and MV Maanika were qualifying assets under the TTS, with income computed accordingly. The transfer pricing officer (TPO) proposed adjustments on interest paid to the associated enterprise (AE) for lease loans, which the DRP upheld. However, the Tribunal noted that earlier years' Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case and others had ruled against such adjustments.

Application of Law to Facts: Given the statutory framework and consistent judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments on qualifying ships' lease interest are impermissible. The income is to be computed as per TTS without regard to actual expenses or ALP considerations.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue contended that the issue was sub judice before the High Court and that the transfer pricing provisions should apply. The Tribunal rejected this, relying on binding coordinate bench decisions and the Supreme Court's rationale for the TTS.

Conclusion: Transfer pricing provisions do not apply to operations carried out through qualifying ships taxed under the tonnage tax scheme. The addition of Rs. 51,46,215/- on account of lease loan interest was thus disallowed.

2. Binding Nature of Precedents and Failure to Follow Earlier Orders

Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of judicial discipline requires adherence to binding precedents, including the assessee's own prior Tribunal orders unless stayed or overruled by higher courts.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the FAO and DRP erred in not following the binding orders of the Supreme Court, High Court, and the Tribunal's own earlier decisions in the assessee's case. Unless stayed or set aside, such orders are binding on the revenue and lower authorities.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee relied on Tribunal orders for assessment years 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2018-19, which had ruled in its favor on the applicability of transfer pricing provisions vis-`a-vis the TTS. The revenue had challenged these orders before the High Court but no stay was granted.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the lower authorities ought to have followed the binding decisions and not made contrary adjustments.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue's reliance on pending appeals before the High Court was insufficient to justify deviation from binding Tribunal precedents.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the grounds challenging the failure to follow binding precedents.

3. Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Corporate Guarantee Commission

Legal Framework and Precedents: Corporate guarantees extended to associated enterprises constitute international transactions under Section 92B and require determination of arm's length price under Section 92C. The ALP must be determined using the most appropriate method (MAM) prescribed in the Act and related rules. The Special Bench decision in Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. emphasized the taxpayer's obligation to furnish ALP details and the authorities' power to determine ALP if the taxpayer fails to do so.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had extended guarantees without charging any commission in some cases and had not benchmarked the transaction. The TPO determined a guarantee commission of 0.75% using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, which the DRP upheld. The assessee contended for a lower rate of 0.25% based on earlier Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the ALP must be determined in accordance with statutory provisions and that benchmarking cannot be arbitrary or adhoc. The earlier rates determined for prior years or other cases cannot be mechanically applied without proper benchmarking for the year under consideration.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee failed to furnish benchmarking for the guarantee commission. The TPO's benchmarking using CUP was upheld as the most appropriate method in absence of taxpayer's data. The Tribunal relied on authoritative precedents mandating ALP determination in every case.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal remanded the matter to the TPO/AO to determine the ALP of the corporate guarantee commission afresh, applying the prescribed methods and following principles of natural justice.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's reliance on prior rates and arguments that no cost was incurred were rejected as insufficient without proper benchmarking.

Conclusion: The ground was allowed for statistical purpose and remanded for proper ALP determination.

4. Tax Treatment of Interest Income from Income Tax Refund

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 244A of the Act provides for payment of interest by the revenue on delayed refunds. Interest income can be classified as business income or income from other sources depending on its nexus with business operations.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that interest earned on margin money deposits maintained for business purposes is rightly treated as business income, as held in earlier Tribunal orders and DRP directions. However, interest received on income tax refunds under Section 244A is compensatory in nature and does not arise from business operations.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee claimed Rs. 1 crore interest income from income tax refund as business income. The AO and DRP treated it as income from other sources. The Tribunal noted that the interest on refund is statutory compensation and not related to business profits.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that interest on income tax refund must be taxed under the head 'Income from other sources' and not as business income.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's contention that the interest was related to business income was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory nature of refund interest.

Conclusion: The ground was dismissed.

Significant Holdings:

"Transfer pricing provisions do not apply to the assessee to the extent of operations carried out through operating qualifying ships where the income is taxed under the tonnage tax scheme."

"Section 115VA of the Act starts with 'Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 28 to section 43....', thereby overriding the normal provisions of income computation and excluding transfer pricing provisions for qualifying ships under TTS."

"The arm's length price determined under transfer pricing provisions has no relevance to the computation of tonnage income under Chapter XII-G, which is based solely on tonnage capacity and days held."

"Corporate guarantees extended to associated enterprises constitute international transactions requiring determination of arm's length price by adopting the most appropriate method as prescribed under Section 92C. The taxpayer must furnish benchmarking details; otherwise, the tax authorities are entitled to determine ALP based on available data."

"Interest income from income tax refunds under Section 244A is compensatory and must be treated as income from other sources, not business income."

"Binding precedents, including the assessee's own prior Tribunal and High Court decisions, must be followed unless stayed or overruled."

Final determinations on each issue are as follows:

- The transfer pricing adjustments on interest paid on lease loans for qualifying ships under the tonnage tax scheme are disallowed.

- The failure of lower authorities to follow binding precedents is corrected in favor of the assessee.

- The corporate guarantee commission adjustment is remanded for fresh determination of arm's length price in accordance with law.

- The interest income from income tax refund is held to be income from other sources and not business income.

---