Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JM
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 57 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 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.
D. FOREX LOSS
The only issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is against the treatment of foreign exchange (forex) gain/loss as an item of operating nature in the computation of the ALP of both the transactions. The ld. DR. submitted that such forex gain/loss was rightly considered by the TPO as non-operating in the computation of the ALP and hence such a view should not have disturbed. This was opposed by the ld. AR, who contended that forex gain/loss relates to the trading transactions of the assessee and hence the same was operating in the computation of OP/OC under the TNMM.
We find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the assessee about the inclusion of foreign exchange gain/loss in the operating revenue/costs of the assessee as well as that of the comparables. When we advert to the nature of such foreign exchange gain earned by the assessee, it has not been controverted by the ld. DR that the same is in relation to the trading items emanating from the international transactions. If the foreign exchange gain/loss directly results from the trading items, we fail to appreciate as to how such foreign exchange fluctuation loss can be considered as non-operating.
The Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT Vs Prakash I. Shah (2008) 115 ITD 167 (Mum)(SB) has held that the gain due to fluctuations in the foreign exchange rate emanating from export is its integral part and cannot be differentiated from the export proceeds simply on the ground that the foreign currency rate has increased subsequent to sale but prior to realization. It went on to add that when goods are exported and invoice is raised in currency of the country where such goods are sold and subsequently when the amount is realized in that foreign currency and then converted into Indian rupees, the entire amount is relatable to the exports. In fact, it is only the translation of invoice value from the foreign currency to the Indian rupees. The Special bench held that the exchange rate gain or loss cannot have a different character from the transaction to which it pertains. The Bench found fallacy in the submission made on behalf of the Revenue that the exchange rate difference should be detached from the exports and be considered as an independent transaction. Eventually, the Special Bench held that such exchange rate fluctuation gain/loss arising from exports cannot be viewed differently from sale proceeds.
In the context of transfer pricing, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2011) 44 SOT 156 (Bangalore) has held that foreign exchange fluctuation gain is part of operating profit of the company and should be included in the operating revenue. Similar view has been taken in Trilogy E Business Software India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2011) 47 SOT 45 (URO) (Bangalore). The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in S. Narendra Vs Addtl. CIT (2013) 32 taxman.com 196 has also laid down to this extent.
The reliance of the ld. DR on Safe Harbour rules to contend that foreign exchange gain or loss be taken as non-operating, is not sustainable. There is no doubt that in such rules, forex gain/loss has been treated as non-operating. However it is relevant to note that such rules are not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. Even the reliance of the ld. DR on certain decisions taking cognizance of safe harbour rules for the period anterior to their insertion in other contexts does not improve the case of the Department because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT VS. Cashedge India Pvt. Ltd., vide its judgment dated 4.5.2016 in ITA 279/2016, has held that : `So far as the question of fluctuation of foreign exchange was concerned, the ITAT ruled that the relevant provision, i.e. `Safe Harbour Rules’ had not been notified for the concerned assessment year and were, therefore, inapplicable’.
Thus the Hon’ble High Court did not disturb the operating nature of forex gain/loss as held by the tribunal. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of foreign exchange gain/loss arising out of revenue transactions is required to be considered as an item of operating revenue/cost, both for the assessee as well as the comparables. The ground taken by the Department is, therefore, dismissed.
To sum up, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for a fresh determination of the ALP of both the international transactions in conformity with the foregoing discussion.
The other grounds taken by the assessee in its appeal are either general or consequential, not requiring specific adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 15.12.2016.