TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on loans advanced to associated enterprises and the adjustment on corporate guarantee fee were sustainable. (ii) Whether deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable in respect of the rail system, water system and receipts from sale of CERs. (iii) Whether disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its effect on book profit under section 115JB was liable to be disturbed. (iv) Whether gain on prepayment of sales tax deferrals was capital in nature and whether write-off of project creditors was taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment on interest on loans advanced to associated enterprises and the adjustment on corporate guarantee fee were sustainable.
Analysis: The adjustment on interest was examined in the light of the assessee's group decision and the settled approach that the arm's length rate for lending transactions depends on the rate prevailing in the jurisdiction where the loan is received and consumed. The corporate guarantee issue was considered in the light of the assessee's own earlier years, where the commission had already been restricted to 0.35%, and the later year facts were found to be materially similar. The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency and followed the earlier binding co-ordinate bench view.
Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions on interest and corporate guarantee were not disturbed and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable in respect of the rail system, water system and receipts from sale of CERs.
Analysis: The claims were examined with reference to the assessee's earlier years, the setting aside of the revisionary order under section 263, and the subsequent finality of the issue in favour of the assessee. The CER receipts were also treated as covered by the assessee's own case and the sister concern decision. On the facts, the Tribunal found no reason to depart from the earlier adjudications.
Conclusion: The deductions under section 80-IA for the rail system, water system and CER receipts were upheld.
Issue (iii): Whether disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its effect on book profit under section 115JB was liable to be disturbed.
Analysis: The assessee had substantial interest-free funds far exceeding the investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal accepted the presumption that such investments were out of interest-free funds, and also accepted the restricted approach for indirect expenditure by applying the exempt-income-linked investment base. The corresponding MAT adjustment was also upheld on the same footing.
Conclusion: The relief granted by the lower appellate authority on section 14A and section 115JB was sustained.
Issue (iv): Whether gain on prepayment of sales tax deferrals was capital in nature and whether write-off of project creditors was taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The sales tax deferral issue was held to be covered by earlier years where the amount was treated as capital receipt. The project-creditor write-off was also treated as governed by the assessee's own earlier decision, where similar additions under section 28(iv) had been deleted. The same reasoning was applied by consistency.
Conclusion: The sales tax deferral receipts were treated as capital in nature and the addition on project creditors was deleted.
Final Conclusion: All the Revenue's appeals were rejected, and the assessee's cross-objections were rendered academic and dismissed as infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: Where identical issues have already been decided in the assessee's own case or connected group cases and the material facts remain unchanged, the Tribunal will follow the earlier view on the principle of consistency unless a contrary distinguishing feature is shown.
TaxTMI 
