Sale of packing scrap treated as operating income; FCCDs seen as domestic loans, SBI PLR benchmark upheld, 13.5% ALP

ITAT held that receipts from sale of packing-material scrap, though shown as "Other Income" in financials, arise from and are linked to the assessee's manufacturing operations and therefore must be treated as operating income for computing operating margin; CIT(A)'s reclassification was upheld. The Tribunal also held that FCCDs denominated in Indian currency resemble domestic term loans and should be benchmarked to domestic SBI PLR; applying the average SBI PLR (˜14.46% for the relevant year) the assessee's interest rate of 13.50% was found to be at arm's length and the direction to adopt SBI PLR as ALP was upheld.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether receipts from sale of scrap (packing material) should be treated as operating income for computing the segmental PLI/operating margin in transfer pricing benchmarking.

2. Whether interest paid on Fully Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (FCCDs) denominated in Indian Rupees must be benchmarked using domestic PLR (SBI PLR) as the arm's length rate, as opposed to a foreign reference rate (e.g., LIBOR) or comparables producing a lower ALP.

3. Whether the conclusions reached for the assessment year under consideration apply mutatis mutandis to the subsequent assessment year with identical facts on the FCCD benchmarking issue.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Treatment of Scrap Sales as Operating Income

Legal framework: Transfer pricing principles for computation of operating margin/PLI of a manufacturing segment; characterisation of income as operating or non-operating for benchmarking purposes; reliance on financial statement classification is not determinative of economic substance.

Precedent Treatment (followed): Tribunal decisions treating scrap sales as part of operating income for margin computation (referred to decisions of co-ordinate Benches holding scrap sales form part of operating income when linked to core manufacturing operations).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined nature and origin of scrap receipts - scrap arising from unpacking of imported raw materials (leftover packing materials) was classified under "Other Income" in financial statements but demonstrably linked to the core manufacturing activity. The TPO's sole basis for treating such receipts as non-operating was financial statement classification; the Tribunal held that economic reality and connection to core operations govern characterization. The CIT(A)'s direction to include such scrap receipts in operating income while computing PLI for both the assessee and comparables was upheld because the scrap was directly related to the manufacturing activity and details substantiating this link were placed before the authority.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where scrap sales arise from or are integrally connected to the manufacturing/operating process, they must be treated as operating income for transfer pricing margin computations; mere ledger/financial statement classification as "Other Income" does not justify exclusion. This principle follows earlier Tribunal precedents relied upon and is applied as binding on facts.

Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's challenge and held the CIT(A) correctly directed inclusion of scrap sales as operating income in computing PLI. The TPO's exclusion on the basis of classification alone was unsustainable.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Benchmarking Interest on INR-Denominated FCCDs (SBI PLR v. LIBOR)

Legal framework: Transfer pricing provisions requiring arm's length consideration of international transactions; OECD guidance that ALP of interest should be computed with reference to market-determined interest applicable to the currency of the loan; statutory recognition in domestic law (Section 92CB and Rule 10TD Safe Harbour Rules) distinguishing benchmark rates for loans denominated in INR versus foreign currency; regulatory context under FEMA/FDI/ECB rules treating CCDs/FCCDs as hybrid instruments with regulatory consequences for currency denomination and conversion.

Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished): The Tribunal followed High Court precedents holding that the currency in which a loan is denominated normally determines the market rate of interest to be applied for benchmarking. It also relied on a Special Bench decision that held SBI PLR appropriate for INR-denominated FCCDs. Earlier decisions applying foreign reference rates for foreign-currency debt were distinguished on the basis of currency denomination and economic differences.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analysed (i) the nature of FCCDs as debt instruments until conversion, (ii) the fact that these FCCDs were issued and recorded in Indian Rupees, and (iii) OECD and judicial authorities supporting currency-centric benchmarking. It reasoned that currency denomination materially affects interest economics (exchange-rate risk, hedging costs, country credit risk, market maturity), so INR-denominated instruments should be benchmarked against domestic lending rates. The Safe Harbour Rules and other regulatory instruments were cited to show statutory/administrative recognition that INR and foreign-currency borrowings require different bench-marks. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s direction to adopt average SBI PLR for the relevant year and rejected the TPO's approach of applying LIBOR-based benchmarking or selecting comparables that produced a lower ALP without accounting for currency effect.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - for transfer pricing of interest on instruments denominated in Indian Rupees (including FCCDs recorded and received in INR), the arm's length rate must be determined with reference to domestic market rates (e.g., SBI PLR), because the currency of denomination is a critical determinant of market interest. Obiter - discussions of broader FEMA/FDI/ECB policy and hedging economics contextualising the ratio.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s direction to benchmark INR-denominated FCCD interest using average SBI PLR for the relevant year and dismissed Revenue's challenge. The Tribunal also applied and relied on Special Bench reasoning that FCCDs, while hybrid, function as rupee-denominated borrowings for benchmarking purposes until conversion.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Application to Subsequent Assessment Year

Legal framework: Principle of consistency and applicability of identical factual/legal analysis to materially identical transactions across assessment years.

Precedent Treatment (followed): The Tribunal applied its reasoning for the first assessment year mutatis mutandis to the subsequent assessment year where facts and issues (INR-denominated FCCDs) were identical.

Interpretation and reasoning: Because the nature of the FCCDs and the currency denomination were identical in both years, and the legal and regulatory framework remained applicable, the Tribunal judged the same benchmarking conclusion (use of SBI PLR) to apply to the later year.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - identical facts yield identical transfer pricing treatment; therefore, the SBI PLR benchmark applies to the subsequent year as well. Obiter - none significant beyond the application of the primary ratio.

Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's isolated challenge in the subsequent assessment year by applying the adjudication of the prior year mutatis mutandis.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's conclusions on both core issues: (a) scrap sales linked to manufacturing activity are operating income for PLI computation; and (b) interest on INR-denominated FCCDs is to be bench-marked by reference to domestic PLR (SBI PLR) as the arm's length rate. Revenue's appeals were dismissed and the assessee's cross-objection (relating to the first assessed year) was dismissed for lack of specific argument.

---