Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA & SHRI C.M. GARG
per section 92 of the Act and it was held that interest income is associated more with lending or borrowing of money and not with sale.
It was further held that while determining the ALP of the sale transaction, all relevant aspects including credit period allowed are taken into consideration and that interest aspect is embedded in the sale price.
It was further held that there can be no separate international transaction of interest, outstanding receivables and that early or late realization of sales proceeds is incidental to transaction of sale.
The ld. DR submitted that for the proposition that non-charging or under charging of interest on the excess period of credit allowed to the AE for the realization of invoices amounts to an international transaction, reliance was placed on Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2015) 63 taxmann.com 114 (Del Tribunal). The ld. DR further referred to the assessee’s written submissions, wherein the assessee has given a table in respect of number of days for which the amount remained outstanding. He pointed out that if the party raises its invoices at the fag end of the year, the ratios will be totally different from the cases where the invoices were raised in the beginning of the year and duly collected before the end of the year (Even if collected after 6-8 months). He referred to the decision of ITAT in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, wherein in para 63 it has been clearly demonstrated that the averaging of opening and closing balance and using the ratio of sales to average written has inherent fallacy.
Further, it has been held that working capital adjustment will not take care of the benchmarking of interest on receivables. The same is reproduced for ready reference:-
“63. The Delhi Bench in Ameriprise (supra) and Techbooks (supra) did not approve the reasoning about such interest subsuming in working capital adjustment. It found that the working capital adjustment is in respect of international transaction of rendering services to the AE. Interest for the credit period allowed as per the Agreement is factored in the price charged for the rendering of services. In the oppugnation, the non-realization of invoice value beyond the stipulated period is a separate international transaction, whose ALP is required to be determined. Granting of working capital adjustment has been held to be confined to the international transaction of rendering of services, whose ALP is separately determinable. On the other hand, the international transaction of interest receivable from its AEs for late realization of invoices beyond such stipulated period is a separate international transaction. Allowing working capital adjustment in the international transaction of rendering services has been held to have no impact on the determination of ALP of the international transaction of interest on receivables from AEs beyond the stipulated period allowed as per the Agreement. In our considered opinion, whereas, the international transaction of purchase/sale of goods from/to AE contemplates comparison of the price charged/paid for such goods by impliedly including the interest for the period allowed for realization of invoices as per the terms of the agreement, the international transaction of charging interest on late recovery of trade receivable covers the period which starts with the termination of the period of credit allowed under the agreement, which is subject matter of the international transaction of purchase/sale of goods. There is one more fallacy in the argument about the subsuming of interest income in the working capital adjustment. It is simple that working capital adjustment is ordinarily computed by considering the average of the opening and closing values of inventories, receivables and payables. A transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on delayed realization of invoice value has nothing to do with the closing or opening values. It depends on the period of realization on 18 transaction to transaction basis. To put it differently, suppose an invoice is raised on 1st May; period allowed for realization is two months; and the invoice is actually realized on 31st December. Notwithstanding the fact that interest on such late realization would become chargeable for a period of 6 months (from 1st July to 31st December), but the amount of invoice will not be receivable as at the end of the financial year on 31st March. As such, this receivable would not have an impact on the working capital adjustment in any manner, but would call for addition on account of the late realization of invoice value for a period of six months. Following the orders in Ameriprise (supra) and Techbooks (supra), we uphold the view taken by the TPO on this issue. Interest on late realization of invoices is directed to charged in line with the directions given in the above orders of the Delhi Bench of the tribunal.”
The ld. DR also filed a copy of the decision of the Tribunal in Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Tribunal has rejected the ld. DRP’s reasoning about the subsuming of interest on receivables in the working capital adjustment. He pointed out that this decision also considers the decision in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and the same has not been followed observing that the same was passed without considering the amendment to section 92B carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 which has been duly taken into and 2757/Del/2014 by the Tribunal in its later order in Techbook International Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The ld. DR further submitted that by not charging interest on the overdue amount from its foreign parent, there is profit shifting from India to abroad. He referred to Schedule 15 (paper book 128) and pointed out that the assessee has earned Rs.1.87 crore interest on ‘demand deposits. He submitted that instead of earning interest in India and paying taxes in India, the funds have been utilized by its AE and thus there is resultant avoidance of tax in India. As regards the assessee’s plea that it has debt free funds, he submitted that the same is of little consideration in transfer pricing because benchmarking is to be done in respect of separate international transaction involving non-charging and under charging of interest on delayed receivables. This plea is relevant only when the issue regarding disallowance of interest u/s 37(1) is under consideration.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record of the case. The assessee’s grievance is two-fold.
Firstly, when working capital adjustment has been made, then, no separate adjustment is required to be made in respect of accounts receivables because the same gets subsumed in the working capital adjustment. The second plea of the assessee is that since its funds are entirely debt free, therefore, no adjustment is warranted in regard to late realisation of proceedings from receivables. The assessee’s reliance as noted earlier, is on the decisions in its own cases for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The issue has been elaborately considered in the case of Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and, again, in the case of Mckinsey Knwledge Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the case of Techbooks India International Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), taking note of the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 to Section 92B, it was observed that there remained no doubt that apart from any short-term or long-term borrowing, etc., or even advance payments or deferred payments, ‘any other debt arising during the course of business’ had also been expressly recognized as an international transaction. In the said decision, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Patni Computer Systems was also considered, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court set aside the view taken by the Tribunal in view of amendment to section 92B. The decision in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. was duly considered in the case of Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. and it was observed from para 20 to 23 as under:- 21 “20. The ld. AR supported the impugned order by relying on a Tribunal order dated 31.3.2015 passed in Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No.6814/Del/2014) in which it has been held that no additional imputation of interest on the outstanding receivables is warranted if the pricing/profitability is more than the working capital adjusted margin of the comparables. In the opposition, the ld. DR relied on a later order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the Tribunal in the case of Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in which the transfer pricing adjustment on account of the delayed realization of invoices from AEs has been upheld. The ld. DR contended that the order in the case of Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has been passed without considering the amendment to section 92B carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, which has been duly taken into account by the Tribunal in its later order in Techbooks International Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
21. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noticed as highlighted above, that the assessee argued before the TPO that interest on receivables is not an international transaction. At this stage, it would be apposite to note that the Finance Act, 2012 has inserted Explanation to section 92B with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002. Clause (i) of this Explanation, which is otherwise also for removal of doubts, gives meaning to the expression ‘international transaction’ in an inclusive manner. Sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of this Explanation, which is relevant for our purpose, provides as under:- ` Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that— (i) the expression "international transaction" shall include— (a) ………… (b) ……….. (c) capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-term borrowing, lending or guarantee, purchase or sale of marketable securities or any type of advance, payments or deferred payment or receivable or any other debt arising during the course of business;….’
On going through the relevant part of the Explanation inserted with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002, thereby also covering the assessment year under consideration, there remains no doubt that apart from any long-term or short-term lending or borrowing, etc., or any type of advance payments or deferred payments, ‘any other debt arising during the course of business’ has also been expressly recognized as an international transaction. That being so, the payment/non-payment of interest or receipt/non-receipt of interest on the loans accepted or allowed in the circumstances as mentioned in this clause of the Explanation, also become international transactions, requiring the determination of their ALP. If the payment of interest is excessive or there is no or low receipt of interest, then such interest expense/income need to be brought to its ALP. The expression ‘debt arising during the course of business’ in common parlance encompasses, inter alia, any trading debt arising from the sale of goods or services rendered in the course of carrying on the business. Once any debt arising during the course of business has been ordained by the legislature as an international transaction, it is, but, natural that if there is any delay in the realization of such debt arising during the course of business, it is liable to be visited with the TP adjustment on account of interest income short charged or uncharged. Under such circumstances, the contention taken by the assessee before the TPO that it is not an international transaction, turns out to be bereft of any force.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Patni Computer Systems Ltd., (2013) 215 Taxmann 108 (Bom.) dealt, inter alia, with the following question of law:- “(c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in holding that the loss suffered by the assessee by allowing excess period of credit to the associated enterprises without charging an interest during such credit period would not amount to international transaction whereas section 92B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 refers to any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises?” 24. While answering the above question, the Hon’ble High Court noticed that an amendment to section 92B has been carried out by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002. Setting aside the view taken by the Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court restored this issue to the file of the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the legislative amendment. 25. The foregoing discussion discloses that non-charging or under- charging of interest on the excess period of credit allowed to the AE for the realization of invoices amounts to an international transaction and the ALP of such an international transaction is required to be determined.”
In view of the above observations, the reliance placed by the ld. counsel for the assessee on earlier decisions cannot be accepted.
In the case of Ameriprise (supra), it has been observed that the working capital adjustment is in respect of international transaction of rendering services to the AE. Interest for credit period allowed as per the agreement is given in the price charged for rendering of services.
Whereas the non-realisation of invoice value beyond the stipulated period is a separate international transaction whose ALP is required to be determined. Granting of working capital adjustment is confined to the international transaction of rendering of services, whose ALP is separately determinable. On the other hand, the international transaction of interest receivable from its AEs for late realization of invoices beyond such stipulated period is a separate international transaction. Allowing working capital adjustment in the international transaction of rendering of services can have no impact on the determination of ALP of the international transaction of interest on receivables from AEs beyond the stipulated period allowed as per agreement. In the case of Mckinsey Knwledge Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra), again, the Tribunal reiterated this reasoning and, inter alia, observed that:
“……. In our considered opinion, whereas, the international transaction of purchase/sale of goods from/to AE contemplates comparison of the price charged/paid for such goods by impliedly including the interest for the period allowed for realization of invoices as per the terms of the agreement, the international transaction of charging interest on late recovery of trade receivable covers the period which starts with the termination of the period of credit allowed under the agreement, which is subject matter of the international transaction of purchase/sale of goods.”
The Tribunal also explained that if an invoice is raised during the year and the proceeds are realized within the year, but, beyond the stipulated period of agreement, then, the same will not come within the working capital adjustment because working capital adjustment is made with reference to the opening and closing balances as on 1st April and 31st March. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal noted above, we reject the assessee’s contention that the interest on delayed payment of receivables get subsumed in the working capital adjustment allowed to the assessee. The ld. counsel has also advanced an argument that since it was debt free fund company, which finding is not disputed, therefore, no interest could be attributable on the late realization of receivables. In our opinion, this plea is to be rejected at the threshold because, as noted earlier, interest on delayed realization of receivables is a separate international transaction and, therefore, requires separate benchmarking. It has nothing to do with the operations of the assessee company being with the debt free funds only.
As far as the assessee’s plea regarding selecting of ad hoc interest rate of LIBOR+400 bps while computing the addition is concerned, we find that the ld. DRP has directed to compute the adjustment using the rates of six months LIBOR + 400 bps on receivables which are to be paid to the assessee in US $ in accordance with the decision in Cotton Naturals (supra) of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein it has been held that it is the current year in which the loan is to be repaid which determines the rate of interest and, hence, the prime lending rate should not be considered for determining the interest rate. We, therefore, do not find any reason to take a different view on this issue.
22. Ground No.2 is consequential
23. Ground No.3 is premature.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 16.05.2017.