Inter-unit chilled milk transfer pricing and overhead allocation for s.80-IB(11A) deduction, denial set aside; audit verification ordered

Inter-unit transfer pricing for deduction under s.80-IB(11A) was central: applying SC guidance, the Tribunal held that where processing units lacked an alternative but to buy chilled milk from third parties, the "market value" could validly include weighted average third-party overheads; treating the arm's length price of overheads as nil was unjustified, so the denial of s.80-IB(11A) on this ground was set aside. Compliance with Rule 18BBB/Form 10CCB was found substantially met on unit-wise accounts, but the AO was directed to verify that audit reports for all eligible units were filed; if verified, the related adverse inference would stand vacated. Disallowance under s.14A was upheld in principle but capped to exempt income. Differential-interest disallowance under s.37 was deleted due to sufficient interest-free funds. s.80-JJAA was remanded for re-quantification after verification.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether deduction under section 80IB(11A) could be denied by treating profits of eligible chilling units on inter-unit transfer of chilled milk to processing units as artificial/notional, and by determining arm's length price of the alleged "excess overhead" gain at nil.

(ii) Whether adoption of third-party weighted average overhead rate as "market value"/benchmark for inter-unit transfer pricing was permissible for computing eligible profits under section 80IB(11A) read with section 80IA(8).

(iii) Whether statutory audit-report compliance for section 80IB(11A) (Form 10CCB for each eligible unit with unit-wise accounts) stood satisfied; and if disputed on record, whether the matter required limited remand for verification.

(iv) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) could exceed the exempt income earned during the year.

(v) Whether differential interest disallowance on a concessional loan to a key employee/director was sustainable where sufficient interest-free funds existed.

(vi) Whether deduction under section 80JJAA required re-quantification where the claim involved carry-forward year benefit and inadvertent mismatch between return and Form 10DA.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(i)-(ii) Deduction under section 80IB(11A) for profits of eligible chilling units on inter-unit transfers; ALP and "market value"

Legal framework: The Court examined section 80IA(8) (applicable for computing eligible profits for section 80IB deductions) and the meaning of "market value" therein, including the statutory contemplation that eligible and non-eligible businesses of the same assessee may transact, with eligible profits to be computed as if transfers were at market value.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the premise that inter-unit transfers must be at cost and cannot contain profit. It held that section 80IA(8) itself contemplates intra-entity transfers and requires profit computation by adopting market value where recorded consideration does not correspond to market value. The Court accepted the assessee's approach of using third-party vendor overheads paid by processing units (weighted average overhead rate) as a yardstick for market value for chilled milk overhead component, noting that the Department did not dislodge the correctness of the weighted average overhead rate used. On that basis, the Court found no justification to treat the eligible-unit profits as artificial/notional or to determine ALP of the "gain" from overhead recovery at nil.

Conclusion: The Court held that the eligible units' pricing based on prevailing market value (as reflected by third-party comparables used by the assessee) could not be rejected on the theory that intra-unit transfers cannot yield profits; the transfer-pricing adjustment denying the section 80IB(11A) deduction was unsustainable on merits, subject to audit-report verification discussed separately.

(iii) Form 10CCB and unit-wise accounts for section 80IB(11A); limited remand for verification

Legal framework: The Court examined Rule 18BBB and section 80IA(7) requirements that each eligible undertaking furnish a separate audit report in Form 10CCB accompanied by unit-wise profit and loss account and balance sheet as if the undertaking were a distinct entity.

Interpretation and reasoning: On record, the assessee produced Form 10CCBs and unit-wise financials (including tabular unit-wise statements) and supported filing by affidavit and portal acknowledgements; the Revenue report asserted fewer forms were available in the system and questioned signatures/acknowledgements. The Court accepted that unit-wise statements in tabular form could satisfy the requirement of separate unit accounts, and also noted system limitations for the relevant year where downloaded forms might not visibly display digital signatures despite backend authentication. However, due to conflicting factual claims on whether all requisite Form 10CCBs were filed and traceable in the system, the Court considered it fair to remit for verification.

Conclusion: The Court set aside the matter to the jurisdictional assessing authority for the limited purpose of verifying whether Form 10CCBs for all eligible units (for the relevant year) were duly filed; if verified as in order, adverse inferences on this compliance ground were to stand vacated. The substantive eligibility/market value reasoning in favour of deduction was otherwise affirmed, and alternative contentions regarding specific processing units were left open as unnecessary to decide.

(iv) Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii): cap to exempt income

Legal framework: The Court addressed section 14A and Rule 8D(2)(iii) (administrative expense attribution) and applied the principle that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income earned.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the argument that availability of interest-free funds eliminated administrative disallowance where the assessing authority had made disallowance only under Rule 8D(2)(iii). Nonetheless, since exempt income earned during the year was lower than the computed disallowance, the Court held disallowance must be restricted to exempt income.

Conclusion: Disallowance under section 14A was directed to be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned during the year.

(v) Disallowance of differential interest on concessional loan: section 37

Legal framework: The Court applied the principle that where interest-free funds are sufficient, a presumption arises that advances/investments are from such funds, making interest disallowance unwarranted.

Interpretation and reasoning: On facts, the Court found sufficient interest-free funds existed to cover the concessional loan amount; hence the inference of diversion of borrowed funds was unjustified.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance was directed to be deleted.

(vi) Section 80JJAA deduction: re-quantification

Legal framework: The Court examined section 80JJAA allowing 30% of additional employee cost for three assessment years, subject to conditions and prescribed reporting.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that the claim required factual verification because the assessee asserted an inadvertent mismatch between the figure in the return and Form 10DA and also asserted entitlement to the subsequent-year tranche relating to the immediately preceding year's eligible employee cost.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the assessing authority for verification and re-quantification of deduction under section 80JJAA in accordance with law.

---