Transfer pricing re-characterisation and own-funds presumption defeated interest disallowance and notional interest claims.

Transfer pricing adjustments for subscription and redemption of preference shares and a corporate guarantee were treated as covered by earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, and no substantial question of law arose. The court noted that, absent material showing a sham or exceptional circumstances, the transfer pricing officer could not re-characterise the preference share transaction as a loan and impute notional interest. On the corporate guarantee, the distinction from a bank guarantee and the Tribunal's lower commission rate were sustained. For interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), the assessee's sufficient own funds created a presumption that advances to sister concerns and subsidiaries came from those funds, so no disallowance was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustments relating to subscription and redemption of preference shares and the corporate guarantee gave rise to any substantial question of law; (ii) Whether disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified where the assessee had sufficient own funds for advancing amounts to sister concerns and subsidiaries.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustments relating to subscription and redemption of preference shares and the corporate guarantee gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The questions on preference shares and corporate guarantee were covered by earlier decisions in the assessee's own case. The transfer pricing issue concerning preference shares had already been decided against the Revenue on the footing that, in the absence of material showing a sham transaction or exceptional circumstances, the TPO could not re-characterise the transaction as a loan and charge notional interest. The corporate guarantee issue had also been concluded by applying the distinction between a corporate guarantee and a bank guarantee, with the Tribunal's lower commission rate being sustained.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose on these transfer pricing issues and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified where the assessee had sufficient own funds for advancing amounts to sister concerns and subsidiaries.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded a factual finding that the assessee possessed sufficient own funds and that the advances were made out of such funds. The legal position applied was that where an assessee has both borrowed funds and sufficient interest-free funds, a presumption arises that the advances or investments are made out of own funds. That finding was supported by the record and was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was not warranted and no substantial question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected in entirety, with the Court declining to interfere because the issues were either already concluded in earlier rounds or turned on settled principles and factual findings that did not warrant appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a transfer pricing dispute involves a real transaction not shown to be sham, re-characterisation as a loan is impermissible; and where an assessee has sufficient own funds, a presumption arises that advances were made from those funds, barring disallowance of interest.

---