ITAT Orders Reassessment of ECB Loan Interest Using FAR Analysis and RBI Rates Under Transfer Pricing Rules

The ITAT Bangalore directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reassess the interest rate on ECB loans from the assessee's AE by applying the FAR analysis to select comparables and considering RBI-prescribed interest rates for the relevant period. The tribunal noted that neither the TPO nor the DRP had addressed the FAR test initially. Given the assessee had obtained RBI approval for payments to the AE, the TPO must re-examine the case accordingly. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, referencing the Karnataka HC ruling that RBI rates are a relevant factor in determining commercial borrowing interest rates.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the rate of interest prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is a relevant factor for benchmarking interest paid on External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) from an Associated Enterprise (AE) for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP).

1.2 Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) selection of 97 comparables and computation of a benchmark rate of interest at 3% is sustainable where no Functional, Asset and Risk (FAR) analysis was carried out.

1.3 Whether the TPO and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) adequately applied transfer pricing principles (including FAR test) and relevant regulatory approvals (RBI approvals) in making / sustaining adjustments to interest paid on ECB loans.

1.4 Relief/direction issue: Appropriate remedial direction where TPO/DRP have not considered FAR test and RBI-prescribed rates despite RBI approvals being on record.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Relevance of RBI-prescribed rates for benchmarking interest on ECBs

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Transfer pricing principles require determination of ALP for international transactions. Regulatory frameworks governing ECBs include RBI-prescribed rates and approvals. A decision of the jurisdictional High Court has held that rates prescribed by RBI are a relevant factor in determining the rate of interest applicable to commercial borrowings.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that where ECB payments to an AE have RBI approvals, the rates prescribed by RBI constitute a relevant factor for determining the ALP of interest on such borrowings. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's view that RBI rates are relevant, and directed that the TPO consider those rates while re'examining the benchmarking of interest.

Key evidence and findings: It was an admitted factual position before the authorities that RBI approvals for making payments to the AE had been obtained. The record therefore contains regulatory approvals and applicable RBI rates for the relevant period.

Application of law to facts: Given RBI approvals on record, the Tribunal held RBI-prescribed rates must be considered by the TPO as a relevant input for benchmarking interest on ECBs paid to an AE. The Tribunal required the TPO to re-examine the matter taking RBI rates into account.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that RBI rates should be applied; the Revenue relied on the TPO/DRP adjustments without expressly addressing RBI rates. The Tribunal sided with the view that RBI rates are a relevant factor and must be considered.

Conclusion: RBI-prescribed rates are a relevant factor for determining the ALP of interest on ECBs where RBI approvals exist; TPO to consider such rates in fresh examination.

Issue 2 - Validity of comparable selection and failure to perform FAR test

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Transfer pricing methodology mandates selection of comparables based on comparability analysis, including FAR test, to ensure selected comparables reflect similar functions performed, assets used and risks assumed. The FAR analysis is a cornerstone of reliable benchmarking under transfer pricing norms.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that neither the TPO nor the DRP dealt with or performed the FAR test in selecting the set of comparables. The Tribunal emphasized that comparables must pass the touchstone of FAR analysis and that selecting comparables without FAR undermines the reliability of any benchmark rate determined.

Key evidence and findings: The TPO selected 97 comparables and computed a benchmark rate at 3%, but did not undertake a documented FAR analysis. The assessee contended that the comparables were not similar to its profile and that FAR was not performed; voluminous paper books were placed before lower authorities to support that contention. The DRP upheld the TPO without addressing the absence of FAR testing.

Application of law to facts: In the absence of FAR analysis, the Tribunal held that the selection of comparables and resulting benchmark rate cannot be sustained. The Tribunal directed a fresh examination by the TPO including proper FAR comparisons to ensure functional comparability and reliability of the ALP determination.

Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee's contention that FAR was not carried out and that comparables were not functionally similar was accepted as a valid ground for remand. The Revenue's reliance on the TPO/DRP outcomes was found inadequate because of the lack of FAR-based scrutiny.

Conclusion: Selection of comparables without FAR test is unsustainable; TPO must perform FAR analysis when selecting comparables and reassess the benchmark interest rate accordingly.

Issue 3 - Combined treatment of RBI rates and FAR test in re-examination; scope of remand

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Transfer pricing requires both regulatory context and proper comparability analysis. Where regulatory approvals (RBI approvals for ECBs) are on record, and transfer pricing comparability is disputed, the competent authority must consider both FAR factors and regulatory rates when determining ALP.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that because neither the TPO nor the DRP addressed the FAR test, and because RBI approvals were on record, the correct course is to remit the matter to the TPO for fresh examination. The Tribunal explicitly directed that the TPO apply the FAR test and consider RBI-prescribed rates for the relevant period in reassessing ALP for interest on ECBs.

Key evidence and findings: The record shows (a) TPO selected 97 comparables and fixed a 3% rate without FAR; (b) DRP affirmed TPO without addressing FAR; (c) RBI approvals for payments to AE were on record. The Tribunal relied on these factual elements and the jurisdictional High Court's pronouncement on the relevance of RBI rates.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh transfer pricing examination by the TPO, with instructions to: (i) undertake and document a proper FAR analysis to filter/select comparables that are functionally comparable; and (ii) consider RBI-prescribed rates applicable for the relevant period as a relevant factor in benchmarking interest on ECBs.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal found that the Revenue's endorsement of the TPO/DRP findings was procedurally and substantively inadequate because the central aspects of comparability (FAR) and regulatory context (RBI rates) were not addressed. The assessee's assertions regarding lack of FAR and applicability of RBI rates were thereby accepted as substantiating remand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and directed the TPO to re-examine the international transaction (interest on ECBs to AE) afresh, applying the FAR test and considering RBI-prescribed interest rates for the relevant period; the DRP/TPO's prior adjustments are not sustained without such re-evaluation.

Cross-references and final operative direction

2.1 Cross-reference: Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked - the determination of ALP for ECB interest requires both a proper FAR-based comparability analysis (Issue 2) and consideration of RBI-prescribed rates where RBI approvals exist (Issue 1). The Tribunal's remedial direction (Issue 3) integrates both requirements.

2.2 Operative direction: Matter remitted to the TPO for fresh examination to (a) perform and record FAR analysis to select functionally comparable entities; (b) benchmark interest after taking into account RBI-prescribed rates applicable to the period for which RBI approvals were obtained; and (c) re-compute ALP/adjustments accordingly. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

---