“interest on outstanding receivables”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B244 judgments

The decision most relied on for interest on outstanding receivables is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on interest on outstanding receivables

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.

345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court

422

citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.

55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court

273

citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

Pr. CIT v. Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

398 ITR 66 · 2017 · High Court

100

citing judgments

Not every item of receivables appearing in the accounts of an entity dealing with foreign associated enterprises automatically constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B. A separate adjustment for interest on outstanding receivables is not permissible if the working capital adjustment has already factored in their impact.

CIT v. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.

215 Taxmann 108 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The provision of an extended credit period or non-charging of interest on delayed receivables from associated enterprises constitutes an international transaction under Section 92B(1) and requires separate benchmarking at arm's length, even retrospectively due to the Finance Act, 2012 amendment.

Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

398 ITR 120 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that a detailed functional and working capital analysis, considering various factors, is essential before treating outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction for transfer pricing adjustments on notional interest. Simply making an adjustment based on receivables alone without such study distorts the transaction's character.

348 (Mum.); Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

21 Taxmann.com 6 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

The use of LIBOR is upheld for benchmarking loans or advances given to foreign Associated Enterprises (AEs), and notional interest is to be computed using LIBOR rates for transfer pricing adjustments on amounts receivable from AEs.

Kusum Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

62 Taxmann.com 79 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Interest cannot be separately charged on outstanding receivables from an associated enterprise if these receivables are an integral part of the underlying international transaction for which the arm's length price has already been determined. Such outstanding receivables are not considered a distinct international transaction.

CIT v. Indo American Jewellery Ltd.

44 Taxmann.com 310 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed receivables from an Associated Enterprise (AE) may not be warranted if the assessee consistently does not charge interest from both AEs and non-AEs.

Judgments citing interest on outstanding receivables

It Expressway Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Information Technology enabled Services ('ITeS') by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises ('AEs'); and b. Rs. 1,01,05,554 for notional interest on outstanding receivables from its AEs. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP erred in rejecting transfer pricing documentation ... receivables from its AEs. 15. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP erred in charging notional interest on outstanding receivables from its AEs, disregarding the fact that such outstanding receivables had arisen out of the service transaction and not a separate international transaction

Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 209/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 209/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Applied Materials India Pvt. Ltd., Unit -5, 3Rd Floor, The Deputy Explorer Building, Commissioner Of International Tech Income Tax, Park, Circle – 1(1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaeca2635C Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

determined. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. 9.8 Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables at the rate equal to 4.985% on the receivables that exceeded 6 months. It has been argued by Ld.AR that authorities below disregarded ... 209/Bang/2021 9.10 Alternatively, it has been argued that working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loan and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 268/Bang/2021 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

268/Bang/2021 M/s. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. “23. Ground No. 14-17 alleged by assessee against adjustment of notional interest on outstanding receivables. From TP study, it is observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from their respective customers. Further Ld.AR submitted that ... been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. 23.1. Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables under weighted average method using LIBOR + 300 basis points applicable for year under consideration that worked out to 3.3758% on receivables that exceeded

M/S. Trianz Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 322/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.322/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Trianz Holdings Private The Additional /Dy./ Limited No.165/2, 6Th Floor Addl/Jt.Commissioner Of V. Kalyani Magnum, Doraisani Palya Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road Bangalore – 560 076. Pan : Aafca8051P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri.Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT –DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

upheld the view of the TPO in computing the corporate guarantee fee at 1.75%. As regards the TP adjustment on interest on outstanding receivables, the objections of the assessee was rejected and the TPO’s order benchmarking the same as a separate international transaction was upheld by the DRP (refer ... Ground No.19 – Exclusion of comparables. Ground No.20 – Working capital adjustment. Ground No.21 to 27 – Rate of corporate guarantee fee. Ground No.28 to 33 – Interest on outstanding receivables. 5 IT(TP)A No.322/Bang/2022 M/s.Trianz Holdings Private Limited. Ground No.34 to 39 & 42 – Disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T.Act. 8. No specific

Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 290/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 12Th & 13Th Floor, Commissioner Of Peridot Block, Bagmane Income Tax, World Technology Centre Circle 3(1)(1), Sez, Vs. Bangalore. Marthalli Road, Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aafcg8223M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 21/02/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 244ASection 270ASection 92B

length price and in doing so making an adjustment of INR 41,71,929 to the international transaction. 2. Grounds against imputing interest on outstanding receivables due from AEs – Adjustment of INR 41,71,929 a) Not appreciating that outstanding receivables is not covered in the definition of international transaction ... Alternatively, it also argued by the Ld.AR that in TNMM, working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables as loans and advances to associated enterprise would amount to double taxation. Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Orange Business Services India Solutions

Fireeye Cybersecurity Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 292/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Mandiant Cyber Security Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Fireeye The Deputy Cybersecurity Pvt. Commissioner Of Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 5, Front Wing Circle – 3(1)(1), Salarpuria Infinity, Vs. Bengaluru. 2Nd Floor, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan: Aaccf1341A Appellant Respondent : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Assessee By Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vilas Shinde, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Passed By National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 30/04/2021 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

based on 6 month LIBOR + 450 basis points and bench marked the interest transaction at the rate of 4.485%. The Ld.TPO computed the interest on outstanding receivables as a proposed adjustment at Rs.1,51,661/-. 2.8 On receipt of the transfer pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order ... that interest on outstanding trade receivables is an international transaction and its ALP has been correctly determined. He thus submitted that the Interest on outstanding receivables have been rightly constituted as independent international transaction 12.7 We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 184/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR

Section 234ASection 35(1)(i)

view that the lower authorities erred in making TP adjustment on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs and hence the assessee's ground(s) of appeal on this issue is allowed.” Continuing debit balance is not an international transaction 67.The Appellant submits that accounts receivable

Aquity Solutions India Pvt.Ltd(Formerly Known As Mmodal Global Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Ci.T.15(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 713/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande

Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)

under directions of the Hon'ble DRP erred in adopting average 6 months USD LIBOR + 450 Basis Points ("BPS") for calculating the interest on outstanding receivables.” 3. Ground No. 1, raised in present appeal, was not pressed during the course of hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed

Integra Software Services P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 736/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri. S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (JCIT) / Shri. Kumar Ajeet Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43(5)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3.4 From the fact, it emerges that the assessee has not charged any interest on outstanding receivables from AEs and non-AEs. Further, the loans advanced to AEs have been benchmarked separately. It also emerges that the assessee

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

charged to non-AE's for similar transactions;. c) on providing working capital adjustment no adjustment is required to be made for notional interest on outstanding receivables. 4.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no adjustment can be made towards notional interest. In any case ... that interest on outstanding trade receivables is an international transaction and its ALP has been correctly determined. He thus submitted that the Interest on outstanding receivables have been rightly constituted as independent international transaction We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records

Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 350/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Solutions Ltd. (iii) Additional ground for inclusion of comparables Ground 19(c) - Insummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ground 19(f) - Sagarsoft India Ltd. (iv) Interest on outstanding receivables (Grounds 13 to 19) 4. The rest of the grounds are not pressed and are dismissed accordingly

M/.S Synamedia India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed in respect of the issues argued and considered hereinabove

ITA 2595/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2595/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Synamedia India Pvt. Ltd., Block 9A & 9B, The Deputy Pritech Park, Commissioner Of Survey No. 51-64/4, Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Circle – 6(1)(2), Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aaccn1140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29/10/2019 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, Advocate

Section 143(2)

comparable was beyond the tolerance range of 3%, an adjustment was proposed at Rs.1,23,01,251/-. 2.16 The Ld.TPO also computed the interest on outstanding receivables at Rs.10,59,82,896/- by applying a 6 month LIBOR + 400 basis points i.e. 4.38%. 2.17 On receipt of the transfer pricing ... been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. 20.2 Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables at the rate equal to 4.38% on receivables the DRP granted a credit period of 60 days. It has been argued by Ld.AR

M/S. Tivo Tech Private Limited (Formerly Known As Veveo (India) Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 237/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 37

held as under:- IT(TP)A No.237/Bang/2021 Page 18 of 29 “23. Ground No. 14-17 alleged by assessee against adjustment of notional interest on outstanding receivables. From TP study, it is observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from their respective customers. Further ... been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. 23.1. Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables under weighted average method using LIBOR + 300 basis points applicable for year under consideration that worked out to 3.3758% on receivables that exceeded

Csav Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1941/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92D

companies, which would factor the impact of overdue receivables from AES and on consideration of the same, no separate adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables is warranted. 7.4 Without prejudice to above, the Appellant prays that even if the notional interest is to be impute on overdue receivables ... proceeded to benchmark the alleged transaction of extending interest free credit to the associated enterprises and proposed to determine the ALP of interest on outstanding receivables beyond the normal credit period of 30 days. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act treated the aforesaid transaction

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

order dated 21.5.2020 this Tribunal held as under:- “23. Ground No. 14-17 alleged by assessee against adjustment of notional interest on outstanding receivables. From TP study, it is observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from their respective customers. Further Ld.AR submitted that ... been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. 23.1. Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables under weighted average method using LIBOR + 300 basis points applicable for year under consideration that worked out to 3.3758% on receivables that exceeded

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Ntt Data Fa Insurance Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.261/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

DRP/Ld. AO erred in considering outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction. 14. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld TPO erred in imputing notional interest on outstanding receivables without appreciating the fact that the Appellant is a debt free company. 15. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in imputing notional ... interest on outstanding receivables without appreciating the fact that that the Appellant does not charge interest from third party customer for delay in realisation of invoices. 16. The Hon'ble DRP/Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in imputing notional interest on outstanding receivables without appreciating the fact that the average receivables collection

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

order dated 21.5.2020 this Tribunal held as under:- “23. Ground No. 14-17 alleged by assessee against adjustment of notional interest on outstanding receivables. From TP study, it is observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from their respective IT(TP)A No.213/Bang/2021 ... been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. 23.1. Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables under weighted average method using LIBOR + 300 basis points applicable for year under consideration that worked out to 3.3758% on receivables that exceeded

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

year 2015-16. 2. The assessee raised grounds pertaining to the following issues:- (i) Ground Nos.1 to 8 : Transfer Pricing adjustment made towards interest on outstanding receivables from AE. IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 24 (ii) Ground No.9 : Restriction of depreciation on computer server and networking equipment ... order dated 21.5.2020 this Tribunal held as under:- “23. Ground No. 14-17 alleged by assessee against adjustment of notional interest on outstanding receivables. From TP study, it is observed that payments to assessee are not contingent upon payment received by AEs from IT(TP)A No.2243/Bang/2019 Page

Biocon Biologics Limited (Formerly Known As Biocon Biologics India Limited) (Successor to Biocon Research Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Biocon Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Biologics India Limited) Bengaluru. Ground Floor, Tower 3, Semicon Park, Hosur Road, Electronics City S.O. Bangalore South – 560 100. Pan : Aagcb7796M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee, Namely, Biocon Biologics Limited [Successor. To Biocon Research Limited With Appointed Date 01.04.2019] Is Engaged In The Carrying Out Research & Development ("R & D") Of Drugs & Drug Delivery Systems. For The Relevant Assessment Year ("Ay") 2017-18, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2017, Declaring `Nil’ Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The I.T.Act & Book Losses As 2 It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022. M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited Per The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The I.T.Act. After Considering The Taxes Deducted At Source, The Assessee Had Claimed Refund Of Inr 4,68,29,020 In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

existent entity and is void ab initio Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing matters 4. Adjustment on account of imputation of notional interest on outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises Without prejudice to the ground 3 above, the Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP has erred, in law and on facts: 4.1 in making ... erred, in law and on facts by adopting the SBI short term deposit interest rate to compute the notional interest on outstanding receivable as on 31 March 2017 instead of UBOR rate as initially specified during proceedings before the Ld. TPO. Grounds relating to other matters 5. Disallowance of foreign