Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2
1 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2) ’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 9502/DEL/2019 ( A.Y 2015-16) SUGAM VANIJYA HOLDINGS Vs DCIT PRIVATE LIMITED Circle-24(2) VR BENGALURU, No. 11B, C.R.BUILDING, SURVEY No. 40/9, New Delhi-110002 DYVASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA 2nd Stage, KR PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU- 560048 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. Harpreet Ajmani, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Anupham Kant Garg, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 25.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 23.12.2020
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Assessment Order dated 28/10/2019 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The grounds of appeal are as under:- “ The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal against the final assessment order issued by the Ld. AO for favorable consideration of the Hon’ble Bench: l. On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, following the directions of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (‘Hon’ble DRP’), erred in assessing the income of the Appellant
2 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
at Rs. 33,37,98,719 (including an addition of Rs. 8,14,74,438 on protective basis) as against the returned loss of Rs. 9,26,83,394. Ground No. 2: Non-acceptance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Bench in AY 2013- 14 wherein the Hon’ble Bench had held the interest income as capital in nature, required to be netted off against the project cost 2. On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has grossly erred in not following the order passed by the Hon’ble Bench in AY 2013-14 in Appellant’s own case, despite admitting that the facts for AY 2015-16 are exactly the same as AY 2013-14.
2.1 On the facts, in the circumstances of the case & in law, the interest income amounting to Rs. 19,62,91,587 accruing to the Appellant in the captioned assessment year, be considered as a capital receipt not chargeable to tax in light of the various judicial precedents including the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2.2 On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in not appreciating that if the interest expense was to be capitalized in the cost of the ongoing project, the interest income, being inextricably linked with the ongoing project, was to be allowed to be set off against cost of project and not separately taxed under the head “Income from other sources”. Ground No. 3: Treatment of interest income as business income (on a without prejudice basis) 3.1 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts, in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in not assessing the interest income amounting to Rs. 19,62,91,587 accruing to the Appellant in the captioned assessment year as business income instead of income from other sources. 3.2 On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in disallowing and capitalizing the interest of Rs. 31,55,60,282 payable on FCCDs, even after accepting that the funds were raised and utilized for the purposes of the ongoing project (which constituted the business of the Appellant),
3 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
without appreciating that the interest expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business of the Appellant and is an allowable expenditure under the provisions of Section 37/ 36(i)(iii) of the Act. Ground No. 4: Disallowance of interest paid on FCCDs under Section 57 of the Act (on a without prejudice basis) 4.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, on facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in not allowing deduction for the interest payable on FCCDs under Section 57 of the Act against the interest income offered to tax under Section 56 of the Act. 4.2 On facts in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has failed to appreciate that there is a direct nexus between interest expense and interest income of the Appellant as the interest income was earned from temporary investment of the same funds on which the interest expense was incurred by the Appellant and thus the interest expense was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the interest income. Ground No. 5: Capitalization of market research expenses and depreciation on leasehold improvements 5. On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in capitalizing the expenses related to market research amounting to Rs. 2,73,08,546 debited to the Profit and Loss Account and depreciation on leasehold improvements amounting to Rs. 380,032 computed as per Section 32 of the Act, without appreciating that such expenses are revenue in nature and allowable under the provisions of the Act.
Ground No. 6: Transfer pricing additions made on a protective basis
On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP has erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 8,14,74,438 on a protective basis without appreciating that the transfer pricing adjustments have been made on interest expenses which have been capitalized by the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP and thus, there would be no impact on the assessed income for the impugned year.
4 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP have erred by rejecting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant which is in accordance with provisions of the Act, despite the fact that the international transaction was continuing in nature and the same economic analysis was accepted by the Ld. AO/TPO in the earlier years; 8. On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP have erred by including the Non- Convertible Debenture (‘NCDs’) issued by Bright Buildtech to its Associated Enterprise (‘AE’) even though the same NCDs had non- comparable terms and conditions; 9. On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP have erred by concluding that the range concept as provided by Rule 10CA is not applicable in the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’) Method and thus rejected the economic analysis carried out by the Assessee. 10. On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Hon’ble DRP have erred by including NCDs as comparable agreement in the final list of comparable even though the same were excluded by the Hon’ble DRP in the Appellant’s own case in AY 2013-14.
Ground No. 7: Miscellaneous 11. On facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Hon’ble DRP erred in holding that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of each item of disallowance/ additions and in initiating penalty proceedings under section 27i(i)(c) of the Act.
The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing.”
The assessee company is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee is engaged
5 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
in the business of development of Real Estate for the purposes of commercial, industrial and/or residential use. During the present assessment year, the assessee was in the process of construction of its retail mall in Bengaluru and Chennai. The assessee has issued Fully and Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (FCCD) aggregating to Rs. 660,90,50,160/- during the preceding Financial Year i.e. FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13. One tranche of FCCDs amounting to Rs. 190,22,75,000/- was allotted to one of its group entity, Vassam Ltd., Cyprus during FY 2011-12 which was thereafter transferred to Virtuous Retail Pvt. Ltd., Singapore in FY 2013-14 and second tranche of FCCDs amounting to Rs. 470,67,75,160/- was issued to another group entity, Virtuous Retail Pvt. Ltd., Singapore during financial year 2012-13. The details of the funds available during the financial year under consideration are as follows: -
Nature of funds Name of the Applicable Amount investor as on Interest rate (in INR) date Equity with share Virtuous Retail - 159,97,85,500 premium Limited, Mauritius FCCDs issued in Virtuous Retail 15% 190,22,75,000 FY 2011-12 Pvt. Ltd., Singapore FCCDs issued in Virtuous Retail 8% 470,67,75,160 FY 2012-13 Pvt. Ltd. Redeemable NCDs Argos Holdings P. 12% 448,00,00,000 issued in FY 2014- Ltd., Singapore 15 Total 1268,88,35,660
Out of the above funds, the assessee made investment amounting to Rs. 616,87,44,043/- during the year under consideration. The detail of investment made by the assessee and interest income thereon is tabulated below:
6 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
S.No. Investment Investment as on Interest 31st March, 2015 Income (Rs.) (Rs.) 1. Investment in fixed deposit 5,07,59,81,796 18,84,01,175 2. Investment in mutual funds 1,09,27,62,247 8,44,56,793 3. Interest on inter-corporate - 78,90,412 deposit Total 6,16,87,44,043 28,07,48,380
For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income electronically u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30.11.2015 declaring a total loss of Rs. 9,26,83,394/-. The return of income of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act under reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act was made to the TPO. TPO vide order dated 20.09.2018 made adjustment of Rs. 8,14,74,438/-. Subsequently, draft assessment order dated 24.12.2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer and against the said order the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP vide its directions dated 26.08.2019 upheld the proposed adjustment. However, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to ensure that transfer pricing adjustment on the interest does not result in a double disallowance in the hands of the assessee pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order on 28.10.2019. The total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 33,37,98,719/-. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 8,14,74,438/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment made on a protective basis to the income of the assessee the additions made by the Assessing Officer is as follows:
Particulars Nature of additions Amount (in Rs.) Returned loss - (9,26,83,394) Add: Disallowance of 31,55,60,282 interest expenses
7 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
Add: Marketing research 2,73,08,545 and brand launch Corporate tax additions expenses Add: Depreciation on 380,032 leasehold improvement as per the provisions of the Act Add: Additions on Transfer pricing additions 8,14,74,438 account of transfer pricing adjustment on a protective basis Assessed Income 33,37,98,719
Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed present appeal before us.
As regards, Ground No. 2 to Ground No. 5 relating to corporate tax additions. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made similar additions in AY 2013-14, wherein the Assessing Officer had capitalized the interest expenses and treated the entire interest income as income from other sources. The assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal in AY 2013-14 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2019 in favour of the assessee on this issue. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should treat the interest income as capital in nature and reduce the same from the cost of the ongoing project. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to treat the interest income as capital in nature and netting the same against the project cost/capital working progress. The Ld. AR further submitted that in AY 2014-15 the CIT(Appeal) followed the order of the Tribunal and deleted similar additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the present assessment year i.e. AY 2013-14 is continued year and the factual aspect remains the same.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the DRP.
8 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The facts are identical in the present assessment year to that of AY 2014-15. The funds raised by the assessee are inextricably linked with setting up of its mall at Bangalore and, therefore, the interest earned by the assessee by parking the said funds temporarily with bank cannot be treated as ‘Income from other sources’. Since the income was earned in a period prior to commencement of business, it was in the nature of capital receipt and, therefore, it would result in reduction in the capital work-in-progress. It is pertinent to note that in the present year, the assessee received the amount on account of interest on fixed deposits in bank. Under expenses incurred on interest cannot be considered as income of the assessee as business income as it is the income from other sources as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. Therefore, in the present assessment year as well, we accept the contention of the Ld. AR that if the expenditure is capital, the interest fund earn on fixed deposits being capital in nature amounts to income from other sources. Therefore, ground nos. 2 to 5 are allowed.
As regards ground no. 6 to 10 relating to transfer pricing adjustment during the present assessment year the assessee paid the following interest to its AEs:
Type of Number of Coupon rate for Coupon rate of Debentures debentures payment of comparables interest FCCD issued to 190,227,500 (Face 15 percent p.a. No. of comparable Vassam Ltd. Value of INR 10 cases – 34 during FY 2011- each) 12, thereafter transferred to Virtuous Retail 15 percent to Pte. Ltd., 18.50 percent Singapore during FY 2013-14 FCCD issued to 470,677,516 (Face 8 percent p.a.
9 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
Virtuous Retail Value of INR 10 Pte. Ltd., each) Singapore during FY 2012-13 RNCD issued 448 (Face Value of 12 percent p.a. No. of comparable during FY 2014-15 INR 10,000,000 cases – 12 each) 12 percent to 12.75 percent The interest @ 15% p.a. paid on FCCDs issued to Vassam Ltd. and subsequently transferred to Virtuous Retail Pvt. Ltd., Singapore was held to be excessive by the TPO. The TPO had held that the correct interest rate on the aforesaid FCCDs should have been 10.717% and, accordingly, upward adjustment of Rs. 8,14,74,438/- was made by the TPO. The Ld. AR further submitted that the adjustment made in the transfer pricing proceeding was made on the protective basis and hence, if the order of the Tribunal for AY 2013-14 is followed in its entirety then the transfer pricing adjustment would become academic as the expenses would remain to be capitalized and the adjustment will not affect the profit and loss account. The Ld. AR submitted that the protective assessment is entirely bad in law. The Ld. AR submitted that a protective assessment could be made only as a precautionary measures where the tax authorities may not be sure as to who would pay the tax on the income which has arisen. An assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment and thus, the substantive assessment must be made before protective assessment is made. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of MP Ramachandran Vs. DCIT 32 SOT 592 (Mum.) as well as Suresh K Jajoo Vs. ACIT 39 SOT 514 (Mum.). The Ld. AR submitted that a protective assessment has not discussed about the substantive assessment being made in the assessment order but has simply proceeded to make the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee. Without prejudice to the same arguments, the Ld. AR further submitted that during the FY 2011- 12, the assessee issued 19,02,27,500/- unsecured FCCDs of INR-10 each at
10 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
par. These FCCDs carry an interest @ 15% for the FY 2014-15. The summary of the terms of FCCDs is reproduced below:
Particulars Description Aggregate Quantity 190,227,500 Face Value INR 10 Issue Price INR 10 Coupon Rate 15 percent for FY 2014-15 Security Unsecured Conversion Terms 1 Equity Share for 100,000 FCCDs Conversion Period Within ten years from the date of allotment of the FCCDs
Considering the nature of transaction and the availability of data pertaining to an identical transaction, CUP method was considered as the most appropriate method in determining the arm’s length nature of the International transaction. A search for the interest paid on debentures by the broadly comparable companies engaged in the development of real estate was conducted. The search yielded set off 34 comparable transactions. The range of interest rate charged in the comparable uncontrolled transactions is 15% to 18.50% with the median of 17.45%. Since the interest paid by the assessee @ 15% p.a. is within the arm’s length range. The Ld. AR concluded that International transaction relating to payment of interest on FCCDs is at an arm’s length. However, the TPO disregarded the approach and economic analysis of the assessee without giving any cogent reasons and determined an arm’s length interest rate of 0.717% and proposed to compare the same with the interest of 15% p.a. paid by the assessee on the FCCDs and thereby proposing an adjustment to the income of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the TPO has inappropriately considered Bright Buildtech as a comparable agreement. The Ld. AR further submitted that NCDs issued by Bright Buildtech at 1% rate of interest and these have been issued to an overseas entity namely Clear Horizon Investments Pvt. Ltd. in two tranches. The total amount of
11 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
the NCDs issued to Clear Horizon is Rs. 365 crores. The Tribunal as per the Ld. AR submissions should consider that from the balance sheet of Bright Buildtech in the year of issue reveals that the book value of the total assets of Bright Buildtech is Rs. 654,33,84,492/- as compared to 365 crores which is the total amount of NCD issued. Thus, percentage of NCDs issued to Clear Horizon to the total assets of Bright Buildtech is 55.78%. As per section 92(A)(2)(c) of the Act, Clear Horizon shall be treated as an Associated Enterprise of Bright Buildtech since the loan was Clear Horizon exceeds 51% of the book value of the total assets of the Bright Buildtech. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that NCD issued by Bright Buildtech to Clear Horizon cannot be taken as the comparable since Clear Horizon is an AE of Bright Buildtech. The benchmarking results of the comparables taken by the TPO after excluding Bright Buildtech are given as under:
S.No. Company Name Coupon Rate 1. Kapstone Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 21.3% 2. Flicker Project Pvt. Ltd. 13% 3. Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd. 14% 4. Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd. 14% Average 15.58%
The average of comparables taken by the TPO after excluding Bright Buildtech comes at 15.58%. Thus, the transaction of the assessee in relation to payment of interest on FCCDs should be considered at arm’s length. The DRP in its directions for AY 2013-14 had excluded NCDs from the final list of comparables. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TPO has erred in concluding that the economic analysis of the assessee using internal CUP method with range concept is flawed. The Ld. AR further submitted that the company has not used internal CUP method and the benchmarking was performed by using external comparables from Bloomberg and NSDL databases. The TPO erroneously concluded that range concept is not applicable in CUP method and rejected the economic
12 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
analysis carried out by the assessee. The Ld. AR pointed out that CBDT introduced Rule 10CA vide notification dated 19.10.2015 relating to determination of ALP where application of most appropriate method results in more than one price. Exceptions to the range concept as laid down by Rule 10CA(4) which states that the range concept shall not apply where the most appropriate method is as per clause (d) and clause (f) of Section 92C(1) of the Act i.e. Profits Split Method and the other Method respectively. Accordingly, where CUP has been used as the most appropriate method the range concept will apply. Hence, the rejection of the economic analysis by the TPO is not applicable in case CUP method is applied and without any basis.
The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO, order of the DRP and assessment order. The Ld. DR further submitted that Assessee Company had received funds from foreign entities by different instruments primarily 8CDD and have paid debited interest on these. Simultaneously, it invested the funds in FDR as well as in mutual funds and earn interest and other income on these. There is as such no dispute regarding the nature of expenditure, which is held to be capital in nature. However, the issue involved is that whether income earned out on investment in FDR (interest income) and mutual funds is revenue of capital in nature. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee’s submissions that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Assessment Year 2013-14 held that the receipt are also capital in nature was already discussed in the present assessment year by the Assessing Officer as well as by the DRP. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Tribunal relied primarily on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. Vs. ITO 181 Taxman 249 (2009) judgment dated 26/2/2009. However, after the decision in this case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had occasion to discussing the same issue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. (2014) 44 Taxman.com 130 (Delhi) and
13 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
held that where there was no inextricably link between investment and project interest income on said investment could not be permitted to be adjusted against pre-operative expenses in respect of said project. In this case, the assessee was incorporated as a Company with object of manufacturing human vaccines and it received substantial financial grant. It invested said funds and promoter’s capital with bank under portfolio management scheme under which assured return was granted by link. The assessee adjusted interest income on said bank deposited against pre- operative expenses relating to a project. Since investment had nothing to do with the project and there was no inextricable link between investment and project interest income could not be permitted to be an adjusted against pre-operative expenses. This decision of the Delhi High Court is dated 5/3/2014 which is later to the decision in case of India Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. Case. The Ld. DR submitted that in this case CIT(A) Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. 236 ITR 315 was distinguished and Kutthikoli Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 227 ITR 172 (S.C) was relied upon and followed. The Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal’s decision for Assessment Year 2013-14 in assessee’s case did not discuss the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Indian Vaccines Corporation Ltd. (Supra) which is also on the same issued and a more recent decision. The important distinction in case of Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. case is that there were legal issue due to which funds were lying unutilized and interest burden on going. Thus, to partially get rate of interest, burden borrowed funds, the assessee has temporarily part these funds. However, in present assessee’s case, neither there is any present legal issue nor the funds are part temporarily in the FDR and other instruments. Apparently funds Assessment Year in FDRs for more than 3 years which forms part of the funds which are at least invested in Assessment Year 2013-14 and are still invested in 2015-16. Thus, the applicability of India Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. is not proper in the present assessee’s case. The Ld. DR submitted that as clear from the nature of investment it is not at all linked
14 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
with the business activities but are pure investment nature and thus basic element of inextricably linked is missing.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Ld. AR made the contention before us that the adjustment made in the transfer pricing proceedings was made on a protective basis and as per Tribunal’s decision in AY 2013-14 in the present assessment year the transfer pricing adjustment would become academic as the expenses would remain to be capitalized and the adjustment will not affect the profit and loss account. But the contention of the Ld. AR appears to be not correct as the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer is more of alternative assessment in the nature rather than a protective as claimed by the Ld. AR. There is a substantive assessment in the Assessment Year 2013-14. Merely not having any impact/effect to the profit and loss account will not make the present assessment void. Hence, the contention of the Ld. AR that there is no substantive assessment does not sustain. Thus, the protective assessment is valid in this year. Ground No. 6 is dismissed. Therefore, we proceed on the alternative contentions of the Ld. AR. In the present case, the assessee has acquired the FCCDs which are unsecured during the Financial Year 2011-12 and till the date of Assessment Year 2013-14, where the business was not commenced coming under tax purview as held in Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Tribunal. But, the Ld. DR submitted that in the present Assessment Year, the business was commenced and the decision in case of Indian Vaccine (Supra) has not been considered in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2013- 14 by the Tribunal. The Ld. DR more specifically distinguished the decision of India Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. which was relied by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2013-14. Though the Ld. AR in his submission tried to refute those distinction, was not able to succeed because of the fact that in the present assessee’s case in this Assessment Year, the business has commenced and assessee could not make out the case that the funds were not at all directly
15 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
or indirectly linked to the business of the assessee. The Ld. AR has made the submissions that a search for the interest paid on debentures by the broadly comparable companies engaged in the development of real estate was conducted for set off 34 comparable transactions. The range of interest rate charged in the comparable uncontrolled transactions is 15% to 18.50% with the median of 17.45%. Since the interest paid by the assessee @ 15% p.a. is within the arm’s length range. The International transaction relating to payment of interest on FCCDs is at an arm’s length. But from the perusal of the order of the TPO it can be found that the TPO rejected the approach and economic analysis of the assessee without giving any specific reasons and determined an arm’s length interest rate of 0.717% and proposed to compare the same with the interest of 15% p.a. paid by the assessee on the FCCDs and thereby proposing an adjustment to the income of the assessee. Further, it can be seen that the contentions of the Ld. AR that the TPO has inappropriately considered Bright Buildtech as a comparable agreement appears to be correct. The NCDs issued by Bright Buildtech at 1% rate of interest and these have been issued to an overseas entity namely Clear Horizon Investments Pvt. Ltd. in two tranches. The total amount of the NCDs issued to Clear Horizon is Rs. 365 crores. From the balance sheet of Bright Buildtech in the year of issue reveals that the book value of the total assets of Bright Buildtech is Rs. 654,33,84,492/- as compared to 365 crores which is the total amount of NCD issued. Thus, percentage of NCDs issued to Clear Horizon to the total assets of Bright Buildtech is 55.78%. As per Section 92(A)(2)(c) of the Act, Clear Horizon shall be treated as an Associated Enterprise of Bright Buildtech since the loan was Clear Horizon exceeds 51% of the book value of the total assets of the Bright Buildtech. Thus, the NCD issued by Bright Buildtech to Clear Horizon cannot be taken as the comparable since Clear Horizon is an AE of Bright Buildtech. The Ld. AR has given the benchmarking results of the comparables taken by the TPO after excluding Bright Buildtech as below:
16 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019
S.No. Company Name Coupon Rate
1 Kapstone Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 21.3%
2 Flicker Project Pvt. Ltd. 13%
3 Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd. 14%
4 Ashiana Landcraft Realty Pvt. Ltd. 14%
Average 15.58%
Thus, from the above chart we can see that the average of the comparables taken by the TPO/AO (after excluding Bright Buildtech) comes at 15.58%. Hence, we direct the TPO to consider the transaction of the assessee in relation to the payment of interest on FCCDs in light of these four comparables mentioned hereinabove at arm’s length. Thus, Ground No. 7 to 10 are allowed.
In respect of Ground No. 11, the same is related to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C). The same is consequentially, hence, not adjudicated upon it.
In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on this 23rd Day of DECEMBER, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (G.S.PANNU) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 23/12/2020 Binita/R.N
17 ITA No. 9502/Del/2019