ESSAR POWER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

While considering the objections raised by the assessee against the said addition,learned DRP though held that charging of interest on the outstanding receivables from the AE is an international transaction, however, certain computational errors pointed out by the assesseewas accepted by the DRP and they directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude the allowable credit period to the AE of 30 days while computing the interest chargeable on outstanding receivables from the AE. In compliance to the directions of the DRP, the Transfer Pricing Officer ultimately made an adjustment of ` 8,90,803, on account of interest on outstanding receivables from the AE.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted, while applying Bloomberg rate of 6.56% for computing the interest on outstanding receivables, the Transfer Pricing Officer has not brought any comparable to show that such rate applied by him is at arm's length. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, as a normal business practice, the assessee does not charge any interest on outstanding receivables both to AEs and non–AEs. Further, he submitted, before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee had made a specific submission that as per the LIBOR rate the interest chargeable on the outstanding receivable is LIBOR plus 0.5%. He submitted, the 4 Essar Power Ltd. aforesaid contention of the assessee has not at all been considered either by the Transfer Pricing Officer or by the DRP.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP.

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Undisputedly, the Transfer Pricing Officer has determined the arm's length price of the interest chargeable on outstanding receivable from the AE by applying the rate of 6.56% as per Bloomberg database. However, it is noticed that before the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP the assessee had submitted that as per LIBOR rate of interest the interest chargeable on such outstanding receivable is LIBOR plus 0.5%. The aforesaid contention of the assessee has not at all been considered by the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned DRP. As held in various judicial precedents, interest on outstanding receivables has to be charged by applying LIBOR rate as applicable in the country of residence of AE. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the interest chargeable on outstanding receivables at LIBOR plus 0.5%. This ground is partly allowed.

In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer in assessing the interest income of ` 27,47,80,861, under the head income from other sources instead of income from business.

Brief facts are,during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that interest income received by the assessee from ICDs, margin deposits from bank and other amounted to ` 27,47,80,861 have been shown by the assessee as business income. Referring to the treatment given to such income by him in assessment year 2006–07 to 2012–13, the Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid interest income as income from other sources.

The learned DRPalso upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in the preceding assessment year, the Tribunal has held that interest income from margin money deposit is to be assessed as business income, whereas, interest income from bank deposits and ICDs have to be treated as income from other sources. In this context, he drew our attention to the appeal order passed by the Tribunal for assessment years 2009–10 to 2012–13.

Learned Departmental Representative submitted, the issue has been decided partly in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment years.

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Notably, while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case

In ground no.4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance made under section 14A r/w rule 8D amounting to ` 1,32,89,000.

In the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year the assessee voluntarily made a disallowance of ` 1,57,11,336 under section 14A of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, though, observed that the assessee has not received any dividend income during the year, however, he was of the view that the investment in shares amounting to ` 7418.82 crore is capable of 7 Essar Power Ltd. earning exempt income by way of dividend in future. Therefore, he proceeded to compute disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D at `134.46 crore and after reducing the disallowance already made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer added back the amount of ` 132.89 crore. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the addition.

The learned Authorised Representative submitted, though the assessee has made suomotu disallowance of ` 1.57 crore, however, if it has not earned any exempt income during the year no disallowance under section 14A can be made. Further, he submitted, the disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the relevant previous year. In support of such contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon a number of judicial precedents as submitted in the legal paper book.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the DRP and the Assessing Officer.

We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. Though, the Assessing Officer has observed in the assessment order that in the relevant year, the assessee has not earned any exempt income by way of dividend, however, the learned Authorised Representative has submitted before us that during the year, the assessee has earned exempt income of ` 40,795. Therefore, he has 8 Essar Power Ltd. submitted, disallowance if any under section 14A r/w rule 8D has to be restricted to the exempt income earned during the year. We find substantial force in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Joint Investment v/s CIT, 372 ITR 694 (Del.) has held that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned during the year. The same view was expressed by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in PCIT v/s State Bank of India, 393 ITR 476 (P&H). While dismissing the SLP of the Revenue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble P&H High Court as reported in PCIT v/s State Bank of Patiala, [2018] 99 taxmann.com 286 (P&H). In view of the legal principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D to the exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. Further, while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act, no adjustment can be made by way of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. However, Explanation-1(f) of section 115JB of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to increase the book profit by disallowing expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer may look into this aspect. This ground is partly allowed.

Brief facts are,the assessee had entered into a power project agreement with GSEB and Essar Steels Ltd., under which the assessee is entitled to recover income tax paid with respect to the power project from these companies. In the assessment year under dispute, the assessee paid MAT of ` 9,63,52,708, from these two companies and were shown as below the line items in the Profit & Loss Account and not included in the computation of income. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that any payment by the power purchaser as per the agreement would constitute business receipt at the hands of the assessee, hence, has to be considered as its income. Accordingly, he added back the said amount to the income of the assessee.

Learned DRP also upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The learned Authorised Representative, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal has decided identical issue against the assessee in the preceding assessment years insofar as it relates to the addition under the normal provisions of the Act. However, the Tribunal has held

The learned Departmental Representative also accepted the aforesaid factual as well as legal position held by the Tribunal.

Having considered the rival submissions, we find that the Tribunal, while deciding assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009– 10, in ITA no.1849/Mum./2015, dated 17th October 2017, has decided the issue in the following manner:–

The same view has been expressed by the Tribunal while deciding assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2010–11 to 2012– 13 as per the orders passed by the Tribunal kept in the paper book. Therefore, following the consistent view of the Tribunal, we hold that the income tax recoverable has to be treated as income of the assessee as per the normal provisions of the Act. However, following the aforesaid decisions of the Co–ordinate Bench, we hold that the 11 Essar Power Ltd. amount cannot be included while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. This ground is partly allowed.

In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged initiation of proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

This ground being premature at this stage, does not require any adjudication,hence, is dismissed.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.04.2019