2025 (5) TMI 1586 - AT - Income Tax

Upward adjustment in respect of notional interest on outstanding receivable - as contended that the assessee s methodology is consistent with transfer pricing principles and judicial precedents and the rejection of the adjustment on this ground is unfounded and contrary to established practice - Consistency with Rule 10B and OECD Guidelines - as contented outstanding receivables from AEs do not represent an independent international transaction necessitating separate benchmarking particularly when the underlying sale of goods has already been accepted as being at arm s length under the TNMM. HELD THAT - Although the assessee conceded the legal position following the insertion of Explanation (c) to section 92B by the Finance Act 2012 it was urged that a separate adjustment for receivables results in duplication since the economic effect of the extended credit period is already subsumed in the working capital adjustment. In view of the consistent judicial position we find merit in the assessee s plea. These grounds are therefore allowed. No interest was charged on receivables from either AEs or non-AEs and that the working capital adjustment already neutralizes the impact of any delay in realization - This contention is substantiated by factual workings placed on record and no contrary evidence has been brought by the Revenue to show that the assessee conferred any undue benefit on AEs by way of differential credit terms. In the absence of any real income element or discriminatory policy these grounds also deserve to be allowed. Benchmarking interest on receivables in isolation violates the principle of aggregation under TNMM and fails to consider netting off outstanding payables - We agree that TNMM being a profit-based method evaluates the net profitability of a transaction set and segregating one element i.e. receivables distorts the overall comparability. Further the assessee has rightly pointed out that no netting benefit was considered by the TPO which would have materially altered the quantum if at all. These grounds are accordingly allowed. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Since the addition giving rise to the alleged under-reporting has now been deleted in full the very foundation for initiating penalty ceases to survive. Accordingly this ground is also allowed. Thus adjustment made on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables is unsustainable both in law and on facts and the same is accordingly directed to be deleted.

The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the validity and correctness of a transfer pricing adjustment made on account of notional interest imputed on outstanding trade receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs). Specifically, the issues include whether outstanding receivables constitute an independent international transaction under section 92B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"); whether the impact of delayed realization of receivables has already been factored in through working capital adjustments under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM); the appropriateness of imputing notional interest on such receivables; the correctness of the benchmarking analysis and methodology applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO); and the validity of initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act based on the said adjustment.

The detailed issue-wise analysis is as follows:

1. Whether outstanding receivables from AEs constitute an independent international transaction requiring separate benchmarking:

The relevant legal framework includes section 92B of the Act, which defines "international transaction," and Explanation (c) to clause (i) of section 92B introduced retrospectively from 1st April 2002 by the Finance Act, 2012. This Explanation clarifies that provision of credit or financing between associated enterprises is an international transaction. The TPO relied on this provision to treat delayed realization of receivables as a separate financing transaction, thereby imputing notional interest.

The assessee contended that the outstanding receivables are integrally linked to the primary sale transaction and cannot be viewed in isolation. The assessee argued that the economic impact of deferred realization is already captured through working capital adjustment (WCA) incorporated in the TNMM benchmarking analysis, thus negating the need for separate adjustment.

The Court examined the Transfer Pricing Officer's order, the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) directions, and the assessee's detailed working capital adjustment computations. It noted that the assessee had applied TNMM using Operating Profit to Operating Cost (OP/OC) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI) and had adjusted margins of comparables for differences in working capital, including receivables, payables, and inventory. The Court observed that the adjusted margin of the assessee was significantly higher than the interquartile range of comparables, indicating arm's length pricing.

The Court relied on Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which mandates adjustment for material differences affecting net margins, including working capital differences, and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines recognizing working capital adjustments as a means to neutralize the effect of variations in receivables and payables on profits.

Given that the working capital adjustment inherently accounts for the economic effect of deferred receivables, the Court found that treating outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction for additional adjustment leads to duplication and is inconsistent with transfer pricing principles.

2. Appropriateness and correctness of the working capital adjustment methodology and benchmarking:

The assessee used average balances (opening plus closing divided by two) for receivables, payables, and inventory to compute working capital, a method consistent with accounting and economic principles. The TPO challenged the methodology on the ground that the assessee used FY 2020-21 data for the tested party while comparables' data were from FYs 2018-19 and 2019-20, alleging violation of the contemporaneous data principle under Rule 10B(4).

The assessee rebutted this, explaining that Rule 10B(4) permits use of multiple-year data for comparables to capture broader economic trends, and that it is standard practice under TNMM to adjust comparables' margins using the tested party's current year data. The Court accepted this explanation, finding the methodology consistent with statutory rules, OECD Guidelines, and established transfer pricing practice.

The Court also noted that the working capital adjustment was uniformly applied to all comparables, and the adjusted margins formed a reliable interquartile range for benchmarking. No evidence was presented by the Revenue to suggest selective or erroneous application of the adjustment.

3. Imputation of notional interest on outstanding receivables and its legal validity:

The TPO computed notional interest on delayed receivables using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, benchmarking interest rates from Bloomberg data based on currency denominations. The Revenue argued that delayed realization constitutes a financing benefit to AEs, justifying imputation of interest.

The assessee countered that it did not charge interest on receivables from either AEs or non-AEs, nor did it pay interest on payables to AEs, indicating a uniform commercial policy without any financing arrangement. The Court emphasized that hypothetical income, such as notional interest without actual receipt, is not taxable under the Act. The Court further observed that the TNMM with working capital adjustment already captures the economic impact of receivables, rendering separate interest imputation unnecessary and duplicative.

4. Treatment of aggregation and netting off of payables in benchmarking:

The assessee argued that benchmarking interest on receivables in isolation violates the principle of aggregation under TNMM, which evaluates net profitability from a set of transactions rather than individual elements. The assessee also contended that the TPO failed to net off outstanding payables against receivables when imputing interest, which would materially affect the quantum of adjustment.

The Court agreed that TNMM requires a holistic view of profitability and that segregating receivables for separate adjustment distorts comparability. The failure to consider netting off payables was also noted as a flaw in the Revenue's approach.

5. Validity of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act:

The penalty was initiated on the basis of the transfer pricing adjustment. Since the Court held the adjustment to be unsustainable, the foundation for penalty proceedings was negated. Accordingly, the initiation of penalty proceedings was found to be erroneous.

6. Reliance on judicial precedents:

The assessee relied on a series of judicial decisions that hold that once working capital adjustment is made under TNMM and the tested party's margins fall within the arm's length range, no separate adjustment for notional interest on delayed receivables is warranted. These precedents reinforce the principle that the economic effect of extended credit periods is neutralized through working capital adjustment, and separate imputation of interest amounts to double counting.

Significant holdings include:

"A working capital adjustment takes into account the impact of outstanding receivables on the profitability of the company, either by enabling a higher sale price or resulting in lower cost of goods sold, both of which improve operational performance. It is for this reason that the TNMM analysis does not isolate receivables for a separate benchmarking but rather considers their effect as part of overall capital employed."

"Once comparability is restored through working capital adjustment, no further adjustment is legally or economically tenable."

"Hypothetical income is not taxable under the scheme of the Act. In the absence of actual financing, merely imputing interest on commercial receivables, which are already considered in pricing analysis under TNMM, is not permissible."

"The benchmarking performed by the assessee is not only in conformity with Rule 10B and the OECD Guidelines but also judicially recognized principles."

"The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A is unsustainable once the underlying addition giving rise to alleged under-reporting is deleted."

In conclusion, the Court held that the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 23,22,513/- on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables from AEs is unsustainable both in law and on facts. The working capital adjustment undertaken by the assessee under TNMM adequately neutralizes the effect of deferred receivables, and the imputation of separate interest results in double counting and taxation of hypothetical income. The benchmarking methodology and documentation submitted by the assessee are consistent with statutory provisions, OECD Guidelines, and judicial precedents. Consequently, the addition was directed to be deleted, and penalty proceedings initiated on this basis were quashed. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

← Previous Next →