Transfer Pricing: Internal CUP and TNMM working capital adjustment upheld; goodwill depreciation and related disallowances denied.

Tribunal applied prior coordinate-bench precedents to hold that an internal CUP (bank quotation) is a valid basis for arm's length interest and external CUP/adhoc forex additions were unjustified, and that TNMM with an appropriate working capital adjustment precludes separate notional interest on receivables to avoid double counting; goodwill from a court sanctioned amalgamation supported by professional valuation and purchase accounting qualifies as a depreciable intangible (with restriction to non eligible portion); allocation of common expenses to eligible units, weighted R&D deduction limits tied to recognised quantification, interest nexus to CWIP, absence of exempt income for 14A type disallowance, and TDS non applicability for services rendered wholly outside India were all decided for the assessee, resulting in dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transfer pricing upward adjustment on interest on loans to associated enterprises (application of LIBOR/EURIBOR, mark up and forex risk addition; rejection of internal CUP) is sustainable; (ii) Whether notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs beyond credit period is maintainable; (iii) Whether depreciation on goodwill arising from court sanctioned amalgamation is allowable and related challenges on valuation, accounting method and allocation to tax exempt units; (iv) Whether allocation of common/indirect expenses to eligible units for computing deductions under sections 80 IC, 80 IE and 10AA is permissible; (v) Whether weighted deduction claim under section 35(2AB) can be restricted to DSIR Form 3CL amount; (vi) Whether disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) for interest on borrowed funds used for CWIP is warranted; (vii) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is sustainable in absence of exempt income; (viii) Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) for commission paid to non resident agents without TDS under section 195 is sustainable.

Issue (i): Transfer pricing adjustment on interest on loans to AEs (grounds 1 & 2).

Analysis: The Tribunal examined prior co ordinate bench decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier years and the factual matrix for the year under appeal, including the nature of the internal CUP (bank quotation), absence of material to impugn its authenticity, and lack of distinguishing facts or contrary higher court authority. The Tribunal considered the TPO's external CUP and ad hoc 100 basis point forex addition and found these not justified on the record, following binding precedents in the assessee's earlier years.

Conclusion: Transfer pricing adjustment and rejection of the internal CUP are unsustainable; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs (grounds 3 & 4).

Analysis: The Tribunal applied prior co ordinate bench rulings holding that where TNMM has been applied with an appropriate working capital adjustment, receivables form part of the main international transaction and separate notional interest adjustments would lead to double counting; facts for the current year were identical and no contrary authority was shown.

Conclusion: Notional interest adjustment on receivables is unsustainable; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation and related valuation/accounting/allocation objections (grounds 6-12).

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the court sanctioned scheme, valuation report by a professional valuer, accounting treatment under the purchase method (AS 14), and binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents (including Smifs Securities Ltd. and related coordinate bench decisions). It rejected contentions that absence of independent third party customers or intra group nature negated goodwill, and accepted allocation treatment and the application of CBDT Circular No.37/2016 for restricting disallowance to the non eligible portion; no distinguishing facts or superior contrary authority were shown.

Conclusion: Goodwill qualifies as a depreciable intangible and claimed depreciation (subject to the computed restriction) is allowable; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Allocation of common/indirect expenses for computing deductions under sections 80 IC, 80 IE and 10AA (ground 13).

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the co ordinate bench finding that unit wise audited accounts and verifiable entries showed direct expenses were appropriately accounted for in respective unit books, and that mechanical allocation of common expenses without factual nexus would distort eligible profits.

Conclusion: Deletion of the AO's allocation/disallowance is upheld; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) vis a vis DSIR Form 3CL (ground 14).

Analysis: The Tribunal applied prior coordinate bench and High Court guidance that prior to 01.07.2016 DSIR's approval pertained to facility recognition and did not alone quantify allowable expenditure for section 35(2AB); facts were identical and no contrary authority was placed.

Conclusion: Restriction of deduction to Form 3CL amount is not warranted; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) for interest alleged to be related to CWIP (ground 15).

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on earlier coordinate bench findings and Supreme Court principles (presumption of utilization of own interest free funds where sufficient) and noted absence of material establishing nexus between borrowings and CWIP for the year.

Conclusion: Deletion of the disallowance is upheld; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D (ground 16).

Analysis: The Tribunal followed binding High Court authority and coordinate bench decisions holding that in absence of any exempt income and where investments were old and funded from interest free funds, disallowance under section 14A/Rule 8D is not sustainable.

Conclusion: Deletion of the section 14A/Rule 8D disallowance is upheld; decision in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) for commission to non resident agents without TDS under section 195 (grounds 17 & 18).

Analysis: The Tribunal applied earlier coordinate bench findings and established Supreme Court precedent (Toshoku Ltd.) that where services by non resident agents are rendered wholly outside India and agents have no business connection or PE in India, the income does not accrue or arise in India and section 195/TDS obligation is not attracted; facts for the year were materially identical and no contrary authority was shown.

Conclusion: Deletion of the disallowance under section 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) is upheld; decision in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal, following binding coordinate bench precedents and applying them to identical facts for the year under appeal, dismissed all grounds raised by the Revenue and accordingly dismissed the Revenue's appeal, granting relief to the assessee on the issues adjudicated above.

Ratio Decidendi: Where facts are identical to prior coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal applied those precedents to hold that (a) a valid internal CUP (bank quotation) can sustain arm's length interest rates; (b) where TNMM includes working capital adjustment, separate notional interest on receivables is not warranted; and (c) goodwill arising from a court sanctioned amalgamation supported by professional valuation and recorded under purchase accounting qualifies as a depreciable intangible under Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

---