HBL POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2177/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 June 2021AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the ALP adjustment because the Transfer Pricing Officer failed to finalize comparables and did not consider that domestic banking rates are not applicable to international transactions, which should be benchmarked using LIBOR rates.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustment of Rs. 1,03,63,734/- made on interest on international transactions with overseas AEs. The adjustment was based on domestic bank deposit rates instead of LIBOR, and comparables were not finalized.

What were the issues?

Whether the ALP adjustment for interest on international transactions was correctly computed using domestic rates instead of LIBOR, and if comparables were properly identified. Whether disallowance under Section 14A should be included in book profits for MAT computation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92B,Section 14A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad’s assessment dated 27-10-2017 framed in furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, Bengaluru’s directions dt.12-09-2017 in F.No. 341/DRP- 1/BNG/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(5) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset that the assessee’s former substantive grievance that the learner lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustment of Rs.1,03,63,734/- pertaining to international transactions with its overseas Associated Enterprises (AEs), does not require to delve much deeper on facts. It is an admitted fact that the learned lower authorities have computed interest on the alleged receivables qua overseas AEs M/s.Gulf Battery Co. Ltd., HBL America Inc. and HBL Germany, GmBH @6.5% involving corresponding sums of Rs.83,17,047/-, Rs.3,800/- and Rs.20,42,887/-; respectively.

3.

Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the Transfer Pricing Officer’s (TPO’s) order dt.26-10-2016 had computed the impugned interest @14.45% going by the SBI’s domestic term deposits rates only which stood restricted in the DRP’s directions to the extent of 6.5% in issue. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. It emerges from a perusal of the TPO’s order that he has neither finalised the corresponding comparables in the very segment forming a mandatory condition for making any ALP adjustment under chapter-X of the Act nor has he taken into consideration yet another equally important aspect that the domestic banking rates do not apply case of international transactions which are to be benchmarked as per ‘LIBOR’ rates in international currency only. The Revenue’s case before us is that the impugned banking rate has been rightly adopted since the interest on receivables as per Section 92B Explanation-C involves adoption of similar CUP method only. We find no merit in the instant argument since the foregoing latter aspect has also nowhere been considered in either of the lower authorities’ orders. We accordingly delete the impugned ALP adjustment for this precise reason alone.

5.

Next comes Section 14A r.w.s.115JB MAT computation involving sum of Rs.6,76,51,670/-. Suffice to say, this tribunal’s Special Bench’s decision in ACIT Vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd., (2017) [165 ITD 27] (Delhi) (SB) has already settled the issue that such a disallowance does not form part of book profits computed u/s.115JB of the Act. Ordered accordingly.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2021

More judgments on Section 92B

All 1,158 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →