Telecom tax deductions and transfer pricing: depreciation, section 14A, 80IA income, spectrum fees and royalty claims mostly favoured the assessee.

Depreciation on passive infrastructure assets transferred under a court-sanctioned demerger was held allowable, while network site rentals to Indus Towers required fresh factual examination and were remanded. Section 14A disallowance was held inapplicable where no exempt income arose, and the corresponding MAT adjustment under section 115JB was deleted. Roaming charges were treated as non-technical automated telecom services, so TDS-based disallowance failed. Depreciation on 3G spectrum fees was allowed as an intangible asset, while section 80IA deduction was allowed on ancillary telecom receipts including scrap sales, site sharing, IRU revenue and related income. The transfer pricing adjustment on ECB interest and upfront fee was deleted, telecom licence fee was held subject to amortisation under section 35ABB, and royalty-related objections were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether depreciation on passive infrastructure assets transferred under a court-approved demerger could be disallowed by treating the transfer as not being a gift; (ii) whether network site rentals paid to Indus Towers required fresh factual verification; (iii) whether disallowance under section 14A could survive in the absence of exempt income and whether the same could be added back under section 115JB; (iv) whether roaming charges attracted tax deduction at source and consequent disallowance; (v) whether depreciation on 3G spectrum fees was allowable as an intangible asset or had to be amortised under section 35ABB; (vi) whether deduction under section 80IA was allowable on scrap sales, cell site sharing income, IRU revenue, late payment charges, cheque bounce charges, provisions written back, other income and SFIS income; (vii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment on ECB interest and upfront fee was sustainable; (viii) whether the license fee payable to DoT had to be dealt with under section 35ABB; (ix) whether royalty paid to WPC and brand royalty paid to associated enterprises called for interference; and (x) whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) could be adjudicated.

Issue (i): Whether depreciation on passive infrastructure assets transferred under a court-approved demerger could be disallowed by treating the transfer as not being a gift.

Analysis: The transfer of passive infrastructure assets had been effected without consideration under a scheme of demerger sanctioned by the High Court. The same controversy had already been decided in the assessee's own case for an earlier year, where the transfer was treated as a genuine gift falling within section 47(iii), and the Revenue had failed to show any contrary factual matrix or higher court ruling.

Conclusion: The disallowance of depreciation was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether network site rentals paid to Indus Towers required fresh factual verification.

Analysis: The allowability of the payment turned on the commercial restructuring, the cost structure of tower operations and the nature of the services rendered after the transfer of passive infrastructure. Those aspects had not been fully examined by the lower authorities, and the earlier year's decision had restored the matter for de novo examination.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether disallowance under section 14A could survive in the absence of exempt income and whether the same could be added back under section 115JB.

Analysis: The assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year. The issue was covered by binding precedent holding that section 14A disallowance is not attracted when no exempt income arises. Once that disallowance failed, there was no basis to add the same to book profit under section 115JB, and in any case such adjustment was not permissible mechanically under the MAT computation.

Conclusion: Both the section 14A disallowance and the corresponding section 115JB adjustment were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether roaming charges attracted tax deduction at source and consequent disallowance.

Analysis: Roaming services between telecom operators were held in earlier years to be rendered through an automated and standardised process without human intervention. On that basis, the payments were not treated as fees for technical services and the provisions invoked for disallowance on non-deduction of tax did not apply.

Conclusion: The disallowance under sections 40(a)(ia) and 40(a)(i) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether depreciation on 3G spectrum fees was allowable as an intangible asset or had to be amortised under section 35ABB.

Analysis: Consistent Tribunal decisions in related cases had held that the right to use spectrum is a business or commercial right of similar nature eligible for depreciation as an intangible asset. The amortisation provision for telecommunication licences under section 35ABB was held not to govern such a claim.

Conclusion: Depreciation on 3G spectrum fees was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether deduction under section 80IA was allowable on scrap sales, cell site sharing income, IRU revenue, late payment charges, cheque bounce charges, provisions written back, other income and SFIS income.

Analysis: For telecommunication undertakings, section 80IA(2A) operates as a special provision and the restrictive construction of the expression "derived from" was not applied in the same narrow manner. Scrap sales, cell site sharing receipts, IRU income, late payment charges, cheque bounce charges, provisions written back, other income and SFIS income were treated as having a proximate and business-linked nexus with the eligible undertaking.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80IA was allowed on these receipts in favour of the assessee, while the related objection concerning disallowance under section 14A became academic.

Issue (vii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on ECB interest and upfront fee was sustainable.

Analysis: The RBI-approved all-in-cost for the ECB was treated as a highly relevant benchmark. The TPO's comparable set suffered from material infirmities relating to the nature of the loan, security profile, purpose, tenor, risk adjustments and subordination. The upfront fee formed part of the borrowing cost and had to be considered with interest for an effective all-in-cost analysis.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Whether the license fee payable to DoT had to be dealt with under section 35ABB.

Analysis: In view of the Supreme Court ruling on telecom licence fees, the annual license fee was held to be capital in nature and liable to amortisation under section 35ABB rather than being allowed as revenue expenditure under section 37(1).

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance in accordance with section 35ABB, resulting in a partial success for the Revenue.

Issue (ix): Whether royalty paid to WPC and brand royalty paid to associated enterprises called for interference.

Analysis: The WPC payment was held to be recurring operational expenditure incurred for use of spectrum and not capital in nature. As to brand royalty, the ALP could not be fixed at nil without a proper comparability analysis and the TPO could not reject the assessee's benchmarking merely on conjectural grounds.

Conclusion: The deletion of the WPC disallowance and the deletion of the brand royalty transfer pricing adjustment were upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (x): Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) could be adjudicated.

Analysis: The penalty ground was premature and did not give rise to a justiciable controversy at that stage.

Conclusion: The ground was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal substantive additions and transfer pricing disputes, while the Revenue obtained limited relief only on the treatment of telecom licence fee under section 35ABB and the connected remand. The appeals were therefore disposed of with mixed results, largely in favour of the assessee on merits.

---