2025 (8) TMI 1116 - HC - Income Tax

Corporate guarantees wrongly equated to bank guarantees for ALP; matter remanded; s.92B covers deferred receivables; s.14A justified before Rule 8D

SYNTHITE INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1), KOCHI

SYNTHITE INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1), KOCHI - 2025: KER: 61180 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a corporate guarantee provided by the assessee can be compared to a bank guarantee for determining Arms Length Price (ALP) and whether adopting bank guarantee commission rates (average 2.56%) to compute ALP is justified. 2. Whether a transfer pricing adjustment is warranted by imputing interest on belated trade receivables when the assessee did not charge interest. 3. Whether disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is properly made and, if so, whether Rule 8D (as substituted with effect from 02.06.2016) may be applied independently to determine expenditure in relation to exempt income where the assessee contends adequate own funds were available. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Comparability of Corporate Guarantee with Bank Guarantee for ALP Legal framework * Transfer Pricing provisions under Chapter, including Section 92CA (TPO determination) and general ALP principles; Safe Harbour Rules (SHR) prescribing benchmark corporate guarantee commission (1%). Precedent Treatment * The Court referenced a judgment of a High Court in which adjustments that compared corporate guarantees to bank guarantees were criticized; that decision held commission comparability with commercial bank guarantees unjustified where the assessee issued a corporate guarantee. Interpretation and reasoning * The TPO adopted an average of guarantee fees charged by five banks (2.56%) to compute ALP. The Tribunal reduced this to 2.45% but upheld use of bank guarantee rates on the basis that guarantees are comparable. * The Court found a categorical distinction between corporate guarantees issued by an assessee and bank guarantees issued by commercial banks: bank guarantees are readily encashable and carry different commercial considerations and risk profiles than corporate guarantees. * The Court emphasised that where the transaction is a corporate guarantee (and the assessee specifically so pleaded), using bank guarantee commission rates is not an appropriate comparable without adequate justification. * The existence of SHR prescribing 1% for corporate guarantee commission is a relevant indicium; although the assessee had not opted into SHR, the Tribunal should have taken SHR rates into account when assessing comparability and reasonableness of TPO's benchmark. Ratio vs. Obiter * Ratio: It is legally untenable to equate a corporate guarantee with a bank guarantee for transfer pricing comparability unless the assessing authorities record cogent reasons demonstrating comparability of risk, encashability and commercial considerations. The SHR benchmark for corporate guarantees is a pertinent factor when evaluating ALP. * Obiter: Observations on the failure of the Tribunal to refer to the cited High Court judgment and to SHR guidance are applied to this factual matrix; the Court directed reconsideration rather than laying exhaustive standards for all future comparability analyses. Conclusions * The Tribunal's upholding of the TPO's use of bank guarantee rates (and resultant ALP) was not justified on the material before it. The question requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal addressing (a) the distinct nature of corporate versus bank guarantees, (b) the reasoned inapplicability (or applicability) of the bank fee comparables, and (c) the relevance of SHR. Issue 2: Imputation of Interest on Belated Trade Receivables Legal framework * Section 92B as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, which brings into transfer pricing ambit deferred payment or receivables and transactions with associated enterprises. Precedent Treatment * The Tribunal had imputed interest of Rs.78,297 on belated receivables even though the assessee never charged interest; the Tribunal's conclusion was upheld below. Interpretation and reasoning * The Court observed that amended Section 92B encompasses deferred payments/receivables and therefore permits imputation of interest in transfer pricing analysis when payments are deferred vis-à-vis associated enterprises. Ratio vs. Obiter * Ratio: Where receivables are deferred in transactions with associated enterprises, an arm's length consideration may require imputing interest under transfer pricing rules pursuant to Section 92B; absence of actual charging of interest does not preclude adjustment. Conclusions * No interference with the Tribunal's finding imputing interest on belated trade receivables; the Tribunal's conclusion is consonant with the statutory scope of Section 92B. Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 14A and Application of Rule 8D (substituted) Legal framework * Section 14A disallows expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income. Rule 8D prescribes methodology for determining such expenditure where assessing officer is not satisfied with the assessee's claim; substituted Rule 8D(2) prescribes direct expenditure plus 1% of the annual average of investment value. Precedent Treatment * The Supreme Court (referred to) held in relation to banks investing in tax-free instruments that proportionate disallowance of interest under Section 14A is not warranted where interest-free own funds exceed investment; the Court relied on that principle. Interpretation and reasoning * The assessing authorities invoked Section 14A and applied Rule 8D(2) (post-substitution) to disallow Rs.3,51,55,880/-. The Tribunal affirmed the disallowance, treating substituted Rule 8D as effectuating apportionment. * The assessee demonstrated, by audited financials, adequate own funds (own funds > four times the investment) during the relevant year and relied on apex authority holdings that proportional disallowance of interest is unwarranted where own funds exceeded investments in tax-free income. * The Court held that Rule 8D(2) cannot be applied autonomously without first establishing that Section 14A is attracted. The onus rests on the assessing authority to show that exempt income was earned by employing borrowed funds or that expenditure was incurred in relation to exempt income. Ratio vs. Obiter * Ratio: Disallowance under Section 14A requires the assessing authority to first establish that expenditure was incurred in relation to exempt income; only thereafter may Rule 8D be invoked to determine the quantum. Where audited financials indicate ample own funds, the authority must justify invocation of Section 14A before applying Rule 8D formulae. * Obiter: Comments on the substituted Rule 8D's structure and comparative jurisprudence serve as guidance; the Court remitted the matter for fact-sensitive reassessment rather than laying novel tests. Conclusions * The Tribunal's treatment was inadequate because it failed to address the assessee's specific contention and supporting audited financials showing sufficient own funds. The matter must be reconsidered by the Tribunal with directions that the assessing authority first establish attraction of Section 14A on evidence before applying Rule 8D to compute any disallowance. Overall Disposition * The Court remitted the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on (a) the proper comparability analysis and computation of ALP for the corporate guarantee (taking into account the qualitative distinction from bank guarantees and relevance of Safe Harbour Rules), and (b) the applicability and quantum of disallowance under Section 14A including required primacy of establishing attraction of Section 14A before application of substituted Rule 8D. The Tribunal's imputation of interest on deferred receivables under Section 92B is sustained.