Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Source- Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi),
Appeal Number : IT Appeal No. 5855 (Delhi) of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/02/2013
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

CUP method is the most appropriate method in order to ascertain arms length price of the international transaction as that of the assessee. We agree with the assessee’s contention that where the transaction was of lending money in foreign currency to its foreign subsidiaries the comparable transactions, therefore, was of foreign currency lended by unrelated parties. The financial position and credit rating of the subsidiaries will be broadly the same as the holding company. In such a situation, domestic prime lending rate would have no applicability and the international rate fixed being LIBOR should be taken as the benchmark rate for international transactions.

 The above view is duly supported by following case laws relied upon by the assessee’s counsel. In Siva Industries and Holding Ltd. vs. ACIT Supra it was held by ITAT that the assessee had given the loan to the associate enterprise in U.S. dollars, and in such a situation when the transaction was in foreign currency, and the transaction was an international transactions, then the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying the commercial principles in regard to international transactions. In such a situation domestic prime lending would have no applicability and the international rate fixed being LIBOR rate would have to be adopted.

Similar view as above was expressed by the ITAT in the case of M/s Four Soft Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT Supra, Dy. C.I.T. vs. Tech. Mahindra Supra, Tata Autocomp Systems vs. ACIT Supra.

We further note that assessee has arrangement, for loan with Citi Bank, for less than 4%. However, for loan provided to its AE’s it has charged 4% p.a. interest. Hence, adjustment suggested by the TPO is not warranted.

We further note that assessee’s profits are exempt u/s. 10B. Hence, there is no case that assessee would benefit by shifting profits outside India. This view is supported by Bangalore Tribunal decision in this case Philips Software Centre P Ltd. vs. ACIT Supra and Mumbai Tribunal in the case of I.T.O. vs. Zydus Altana Health Care P Ltd. Supra.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031