2025 (6) TMI 1991 - AT - Income Tax

TP Adjustment - assessee gave loan to its AE in Dubai against which interest at the rate of 1 year LIBOR 2.5% p.a. being 3.8% on the outstanding at the end of the each financial year was charged - CIT directing the assessing officer to refer the international transaction reported by the assessee in form 3CEB of the transfer pricing officer for computing arms length price. Whether the interest rate prevailing in India should apply because the lender is in India or the lending rent prevailing in US is to be apply though the receiver of the loan is a resident of Dubai? - HELD THAT - It is relevant to note the observation of Cotton nature India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 1031 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein as categorically observed that the currency in which the loan is to be repaid determines the rate of return on the money lent. In the present facts of the case it is not clear from the documents placed on record as to what is currency in which the loan will be repaid or is agreed to be repaid by the AE in Dubai. The assessee is therefore directed to furnish relevant documents in support to established the currency in which the repayment of loan is to take place. Based on such evidences the Ld.AO/TPO shall consider the manner in which the interest attributable to such is loan is to be computed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

1. Whether the loan advanced by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE) in Dubai should be treated as a loan in Indian Rupees (INR) or in United Arab Emirates Dirham (AED), given the contradictory disclosures in statutory filings and supporting documents.

2. Whether the interest rate applied by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) at 11% per annum (based on SBI PLR plus margin) is appropriate, or whether the LIBOR-linked rate of 3.8% adopted by the assessee is the correct arm's length interest rate.

3. The evidentiary weight and precedence to be accorded to statutory filings such as Form 3CEB vis-`a-vis ancillary documentary evidence like loan agreements, SWIFT remittance messages, and RBI filings in determining the currency and terms of the loan.

4. The proper legal and economic principles to determine the benchmark interest rate for international transactions involving loans between associated enterprises, particularly the relevance of the currency of loan repayment in fixing the arm's length interest rate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Currency of the Loan (INR vs. AED):

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Transfer Pricing provisions mandate that international transactions between associated enterprises be priced at arm's length. The currency in which the loan is denominated and repaid is a critical factor in determining the appropriate arm's length interest rate. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (2015) emphasized that the currency of repayment determines the applicable interest rate, not the residence of the lender or borrower. Klaus Vogel's commentary on Double Taxation Conventions was also cited, underscoring that interest rates are currency-specific and globally consistent within free capital markets.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Form 3CEB, a statutory filing under the Income Tax Act, disclosed the loan currency as INR, whereas the loan agreement, SWIFT messages, RBI Form ODI, and bank remittance advices clearly indicated the loan was advanced in AED. The AO and TPO relied heavily on the Form 3CEB disclosure to treat the loan as INR-denominated. The DRP upheld this view, emphasizing the precedence of statutory filings unless corrected or amended.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted a loan agreement explicitly stating the loan amount in AED and interest linked to LIBOR + 2.5%, SWIFT remittance messages evidencing AED disbursement, RBI ODI filings reporting the loan in AED, and bank remittance advices confirming the currency. The only contrary evidence was the Form 3CEB disclosure of INR as the currency, which the assessee admitted was a clerical error.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal acknowledged the inconsistency but observed that the statutory filing (Form 3CEB) was not amended or corrected despite the assessee's awareness of the discrepancy. The DRP and AO's reliance on the statutory form was grounded in the principle of consistency and the burden of proof resting on the assessee to substantiate claims. However, the Tribunal found that the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was substantial and unrebutted, indicating the loan was indeed in AED.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO and DRP argued that the statutory filing should prevail and that the loan agreement did not clearly specify the currency of repayment. The assessee countered that the loan agreement and ancillary documents clearly demonstrated the loan was in AED and that the Form 3CEB disclosure was a clerical error. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting the commercial practice of loans being disbursed in round foreign currency figures rather than arbitrary INR amounts.

Conclusion: While the statutory filing indicated INR, the Tribunal recognized the substantial documentary evidence supporting AED as the loan currency. However, due to the absence of conclusive evidence on the currency of repayment, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration after the assessee furnishes relevant documents establishing the currency of repayment.

2. Appropriate Interest Rate to be Applied (11% SBI PLR vs. 3.8% LIBOR + 2.5%):

Legal Framework and Precedents: The arm's length principle requires that interest rates on international loans reflect market conditions for the currency in which the loan is denominated. The Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Cotton Naturals held that interest rates should correspond to the currency of the loan repayment, not the lender's or borrower's residence. Several Tribunal decisions were cited by the assessee accepting LIBOR-based benchmarks for foreign currency loans.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO and TPO applied the SBI PLR plus margin rate of 11% on the basis that the loan was in INR and governed by Indian law and jurisdiction. The assessee contended that the loan was in AED and that the interest rate should be LIBOR + 2.5% (3.8%), reflecting the foreign currency market rate. The Tribunal noted that the choice of currency is decisive in determining the interest rate, and that PLR rates are not applicable for foreign currency loans.

Key Evidence and Findings: The loan agreement specified interest at LIBOR + 2.5%. The assessee accrued interest at 3.8% but no actual interest was received during the year. The AO computed additional income by applying 11%, resulting in an addition of Rs. 67,20,937. The DRP upheld the AO's approach due to the statutory form disclosure and lack of clear evidence on currency of repayment.

Application of Law to Facts: Given the unresolved question of loan currency, the Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to reconsider the interest rate after clarifying the currency of repayment. It emphasized that the interest rate must correspond to the currency in which the loan is repayable, consistent with judicial precedents and economic rationale.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee relied on the loan agreement and international benchmarks to support LIBOR-based interest. The AO and DRP relied on statutory filings and the governing law clause to justify applying SBI PLR. The Tribunal found the assessee's argument persuasive but required further evidence on currency of repayment before final determination.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not uphold the AO's application of 11% interest rate outright but remitted the issue for fresh consideration after the assessee produces conclusive evidence on currency of repayment. The principle that the interest rate should be currency-specific was reaffirmed.

3. Evidentiary Value of Statutory Filings vs. Ancillary Documents:

Legal Framework and Precedents: Statutory filings like Form 3CEB are important but not conclusive evidence of the nature of international transactions. The Tribunal referred to precedents where disclosures in statutory forms were held not to be determinative if contradicted by credible evidence (e.g., DLF Hotel Holdings Ltd and Thane Acid and Chemical Company cases).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The DRP emphasized the primacy of Form 3CEB, but the Tribunal recognized that the assessee's failure to amend the form weakened their position. Nonetheless, the Tribunal acknowledged that the loan agreement, SWIFT messages, RBI filings, and bank remittance advices provided strong evidence that the loan was in AED.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's documentary evidence was unrebutted and consistent, while the statutory form had a clerical error. The Tribunal noted that the INR amount disclosed was a non-standard figure inconsistent with typical loan disbursements, supporting the claim of clerical error.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal balanced the statutory filing's importance with the need to consider all relevant evidence to determine the true nature of the transaction. It held that statutory filings cannot be the sole basis for adverse conclusions when credible contradictory evidence exists.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO and DRP insisted on adherence to statutory filings for certainty and consistency. The assessee argued for a holistic view considering all documentary evidence. The Tribunal sided with the latter approach but emphasized the need for the assessee to rectify discrepancies.

Conclusion: The Tribunal recognized the primacy of statutory forms but held that they are not conclusive in isolation. The assessee's evidence was sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the currency and interest rate issues.

4. Burden of Proof and Procedural Directions:

Legal Framework and Precedents: The burden of proof to establish the correctness of international transaction details lies on the assessee under income tax law. The Tribunal cited principles of consistency and the necessity of proper documentation to substantiate claims.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to correct the Form 3CEB despite knowledge of the error, which weakened their case. However, given the unrebutted documentary evidence, the Tribunal directed the assessee to furnish clear proof of the currency of repayment.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence on the currency of repayment and thus remitted the matter to the AO/TPO for fresh determination with a direction to grant the assessee full opportunity of being heard.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal balanced the burden of proof with the assessee's right to be heard and the need for a just determination based on all relevant evidence.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The AO and DRP emphasized procedural correctness and burden of proof on the assessee. The assessee sought a substantive determination based on the totality of evidence. The Tribunal ordered a fresh adjudication to reconcile these positions.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for de novo consideration with directions to the assessee to produce relevant documents establishing currency of repayment and to be heard fully.

Significant Holdings:

"The currency in which the loan is to be repaid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. Interest rates should not be computed on the basis of interest payable on the currency or legal tender of the place or the country of residence of either party."

"The choice of one particular currency can be just as reasonable as that of another, despite different levels of interest rates. An economic criterion for one party may be that it wants, if possible, to avoid exchange risks."

"The existing differences in the levels of interest rates do not depend on any place but rather on the currency concerned."

"Disclosure made in statutory forms filed before the Income-tax Authorities cannot solely form the basis of a conclusion, where the factual evidence indicates to the contrary."

"The applicant's objection lacks merit due to inconsistencies in documentation and inadequate substantiation of claims regarding loan currency and interest rate. The TPO's approach to treating the loan as an INR transaction and applying the 11% interest rate is justified and Panel agrees with it." (DRP observation)

"The assessee is directed to furnish relevant documents in support to establish the currency in which the repayment of loan is to take place. Based on such evidence the Ld.AO/TPO shall consider the manner in which the interest attributable to such loan is to be computed."

The Tribunal's final determination was to partly allow the appeal for statistical purposes by remanding the issues of currency of loan and appropriate interest rate to the AO/TPO for fresh consideration after the assessee furnishes conclusive evidence on the currency of repayment. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to the arm's length principle, currency-specific interest rate determination, and the necessity of reconciling statutory filings with substantive documentary evidence.