TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) amounting to Rs. 1,88,87,845/- being 0.5% of the average investments may be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the administrative expenses of Rs. 1,88,87,845/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Income Tax Rules. The appellant prays that the conclusion reached by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous and the said addition may be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant that provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) is not applicable to the administrative expenses and no disallowance should be made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8(D)(2)(iii). The addition confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) may be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,88,87,845/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by applying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e enterprises be made and the interest income offered by the appellant in respect of the international transactions of granting loans to three associate enterprises be accepted. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant prays that the addition confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) amounting to Rs. 11,04,04,539/- to the international transaction of giving loan to the subsidiary companies may be deleted. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, add to, abridge, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal in future, which are without prejudice to one other." The revenue on the other hand has challenged the order of the CIT(A) by raising the following grounds of appeal : "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 7,51,15,797/- computed by the AO u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D to Rs. 2,60,29,275/- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 283) while holding that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the permissible range. The TPO did not accept the geography of the borrower as the determining factor in computing the ALP of the interest rate charged by the assessee. In the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations the TPO used the 'Credit Rating and Information Services of India Ltd.' (for short 'CRISIL') credit rating scale for Financial Year 2008-09 and used the annualized average yield of bonds to determine the CUP of the interest rate to be applied for determination of the ALP. The TPO determined the ALP @15.41%, and worked out the resultant shortfall in charging of interest by the assessee on loans advanced to its AEs at Rs. 11,04,04,539/-, as under : Sl. No AE Loan Currency Loan Amount foreign currency Interest in foreign currency as per Assessee [A] Interest in foreign currency as per TPO with rate of 15.41% [B] Exposure [B-A] FOREX rate as per RBI 31 March 2009 Exposure in INR 1. Elsamex Euro 9,738,000 104,040 235,426 131,386 67.48 8,865,927 2. IIPL USD 46,500,000 1,926,910 3,682,771 1,755,861 50.95 89,461,118 3. IMPOL USD 6,500,000 267,648 504,694 237,046 50.95 12,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rate that the assessee lender could have expected to earn in a similar transaction carried out with an unrelated party would be the determining factor. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the transfer pricing analysis was to be carried out irrespective of the cost savings of the borrower. The CIT(A) drawing force from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal wherein the interest on bank FDR was adopted as the safest comparable subject to further adjustments after taking into account the risk factors involved in granting the loan to the AEs, thus observed that the TPO had rightly computed the ALP of the interest charged on the amounts advanced to the AEs by using the Bond Yield rates corresponding to the assessee lender and the borrower AEs. On the basis of the aforesaid deliberations the CIT(A) upheld the TP adjustments of Rs. 11,04,04,539/- as regards the determination of the ALP of the interest charged by the assessee on the advances given to its AEs. 7. Insofar the disallowance under Sec. 14A was concerned, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee by relying on the CIT(A)'s order for the earlier years, had by way of a revised computation restricted the disallowance under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... formation of these SPVs was not found to be supported by the relevant facts of the case. Rather, it was noticed by the CIT(A) that a portion of the assesses substantial revenue expenses on earning of its operational income would be relatable to the formation and continuation of the SPVs. The CIT(A) was of the view that as the return on investments including dividend that has or shall be issued by such SPVs would be exempt from tax as and when received, therefore, to that extent, some of the indirect expenses would be relatable to the receipt of such exempt income which was to be computed as per Rule 8D(2)(iii). Insofar, reliance was placed by the assessee on the order of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Oriental Structural Engineers P. Ltd. (ITA 605/2012), it was noticed by the CIT(A) that in the said case 2% of the dividend receipts was retained by the Tribunal as a reasonable disallowance towards administrative expenses viz. management salary, telephone, stationery, postage expenses etc. As regards the reliance that was placed by the assessee on the order of the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of AEI Agro Ltd. (ITA 1331/Kol/2011), it was observed by the CIT(A) that the said order was on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o its AEs the ALP in respect of the interest charged was to be determined on the basis of the rate of interest being charged in the country where the loan is received/consumed. The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. (ITA No. 1320 of 2012; dated 03.02.2015) (copy placed on record). The Ld. A.R drawing force from the aforesaid judgment in the case of Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd (supra) submitted that no infirmity did emerge from the determination of the ALP of the interest charged by the assessee on the loans advanced to its AEs on the basis of the rate of interest that was being charged in the country where the loans were received/consumed by the respective AEs viz. (i) LIBOR + 5.50%; and (ii) EURIBOR + 1.75%. It was thus submitted by the Ld. A.R that the lower authorities were in error in adopting the Indian rates and therein benchmarking the ALP of the interest charged by the assessee @ 15.41% p.a. by considering the corresponding annualized average yield (%) from CRISIL Ltd. credit rating scale for the year under consideration. 9. Per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P of the interest rate charged. The TPO used the CRISIL credit rating scale for Financial Year 2008- 09 and adopted the annualized average yield of bonds of 15.41% to determine the CUP of the interest rate to be applied for the determination of the ALP, and resultantly worked out the shortfall in charging of interest by the assessee on loans advanced to its AEs at Rs. 11,04,04,539/-. It is the contention of the Ld. A.R that the lower authorities was in error in benchmarking as per the Indian rates the ALP of the interest charged by the assessee @ 15.41% p.a. 11. We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration and find that the assessee had provided financial assistance by way of loans in USD/EUROS to its aforementioned AEs viz. (i) IMOPL (USD 6.50 million towards financial assistance by way of loan); (ii) IIPL [(USD 33.5 million towards loan for the purpose of meeting its long term financial requirements & USD 13 million as advance towards share capital which was subsequently converted into a loan during the year]; and (iii) Elsamex (EURO 9,738,000 towards term loan by way of four transfers). We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AE by considering the LIBOR plus 2% and not the rates of the Indian Market. We further find that a coordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. ITAT, Pune Bench "B", Pune in the case of Tool Tech Global Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT had observed that in the case of a transaction in foreign currency between two cross border entities the ALP should be computed in context of the prevailing lending practices in the international market. The Tribunal had further observed that in respect of such international transactions, the domestic bank rate would not be a sound basis and rather internationally accepted LIBOR rate would be the proper basis for benchmarking the ALP of the interest rate in respect of the said transactions. We further find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. M/s Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 233/Mum/2014, dated 27.03.2015) had observed that the interest rate applicable should be that of the currency concerned in which the loan has to be repaid. The Hon'ble High Court had disagreed with the view that the interest rates were to be computed on the basis of interest payable on the currency or legal tender of the place or t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Rule 8D(2)(iii) by the CIT(A). The facts pertaining to the issue under consideration lies in a narrow compass. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee in the computation of income filed along with its return of income had computed the disallowance under Sec. 14A at Rs. 7,51,15,797/-. However, in the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee on the basis of the CIT(A)'s order for the earlier years filed a revised computation of income with the A.O and restricted the disallowance under Sec. 14A to Rs. 2,60,29,275/-. The revised computation of disallowance under Sec. 14A did not find favour with the A.O who remained under a strong conviction that the said revised claim of disallowance could not be considered in the absence of a revised return of income of the assessee. On the basis of his aforesaid conviction, the A.O taking support of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) rejected the claim of the assessee and assessed its income by retaining the disallowance under Sec. 14A at Rs. 7,51,15,797/-. 13. It is contention of the Ld. A.R before us that in the absence of any exempt dividend income no disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Del). Further, a 'Special Bench' of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 415 (Delhi-Trib) (SB) has held that disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) shall be computed only on those investments which had yielded tax free income during the year. Apart therefrom, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del) has held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable by the assessee during the year. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. M/s Ballapur Industries Ltd. (ITA No. 51 of 2016; dated 13.10.2016) while rejecting the appeal of the revenue and holding that no substantial question of law did arise therefrom, has held as under : "On hearing the Ld. Counsel for the department and on a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that both the authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that there was no exempt income earned by the assessee. While holding so, the authorities relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 749/2014,....