THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMA LTD., AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the notional interest adjustment was correctly deleted as the outstanding period was within the agreed credit period. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the delay period and the applied interest rate.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting upward adjustments made by the AO towards notional interest on outstanding receivables and notional mark-up on liaison support services. The AO had made these adjustments in relation to international transactions.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the upward adjustment for notional interest on outstanding receivables and notional mark-up on liaison support services in the context of transfer pricing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2012- 13.
The grounds of appeal
raised by the Revenue read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the upward adjustment of Rs. 1,50,75,015/- towards notional interest made in respect of outstanding receivables.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the upward adjustment of Rs. 24,00,000/- towards notional mark up on a transaction in respect of the Liason Support services.”
The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals products. The return of income was filed on 28.11.2012
ACIT vs. Intas Pharma Ltd. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2 - declaring loss of Rs. (-)7,06,88,805/-. The AO made adjustments in respect of international transactions to the extent of Rs. 1,80,49,011/-.
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the upward adjustment of Rs. 1,50,75,015/- towards notional interest made in respect of the outstanding receivables. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the ALP interest that was required to be charged by the assessee company from the AEs in view of delay in realization of sale invoices issued beyond the credit period extended by the assessee company. The Ld. D.R. pointed out Page 35 of the Assessment Order wherein the duration was for 335 days. As regards, upward adjustment to the extent of Rs. 24,00,000/- towards notional mark up on transaction in respect of Liason Support services the Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) totally ignored the fact that certain amount of estimation and approximation is necessary while dealing with transfer pricing adjustment. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order.
The Ld. A.R. relied upon the order of CIT(A) and submitted that approximately 179 days delay was incurred in realization of sale invoices beyond the credit period extended by the assessee company and therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the upward adjustment.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has given a detail finding that the copy of invoices clearly shows that terms of delivery and ACIT vs. Intas Pharma Ltd. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3 - payment is 180 days from the date of appeal of lading. Therefore, interest is not to be charged up to outstanding period less than 180 days. The CIT(A) has further observed that the TPO has charged interest for 335 days which is not correct but at the same time the TPO has rightly applied the rate at 3.05% which is LIBOR + Foreign Fluctuation Adjustment (FFA) and accordingly the adjustment was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 5,73,996/-. As per RBI policy credit of 180 to 360 days the assessee has to be granted the upward adjustment. Thus, there is no fault pointed out by the Ld. D.R. in respect of delay period which is less than 180 days. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 14/10/2022
More judgments on Section 92CA
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Airmeet Networks Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Assessing Officer, BengaluruITA 1487/BANG/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026