Interest on overdue foreign receivables must be benchmarked using the invoice currency.

By | September 27, 2025
0 Comment

Interest on overdue foreign receivables must be benchmarked using the invoice currency.

Issue

What is the appropriate method for benchmarking the notional interest to be charged on delayed or overdue receivables from a foreign Associated Enterprise (AE) in a transfer pricing assessment?

Facts

  • The assessee had outstanding receivables from its US-based Associated Enterprise (AE).
  • The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made a transfer pricing adjustment by charging interest on these overdue receivables at a high domestic rate of 13.62%.
  • The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), without giving any specific reason for its choice, directed the TPO to use the LIBOR rate plus 350 basis points instead.
  • The assessee challenged this, arguing that neither the domestic Rupee-based rate nor the arbitrary LIBOR-based rate was an appropriate Arm’s Length Price (ALP). They contended that the benchmark should be based on a rate applicable to the currency of the transaction, which was likely US Dollars.

Decision

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the TPO for a fresh decision.

  • It held that using benchmarks like the Indian Prime Lending Rate or even LIBOR without proper justification was inappropriate for this type of transaction.
  • The Tribunal gave a clear direction that the benchmarking for the interest on outstanding receivables must be carried out based on the currency in which the invoices were prepared.
  • The assessee was directed to provide a fresh benchmarking study on this basis for the TPO to consider.

Key Takeways

  • The Currency of the Transaction is Key: For benchmarking interest on international transactions, such as overdue receivables, the interest rate should be based on the currency in which the transaction is denominated. Applying a domestic Rupee-based interest rate to a US Dollar receivable is fundamentally incorrect.
  • Benchmarking Must Be Justified: Authorities like the DRP cannot simply pick a benchmark (like LIBOR + an arbitrary spread) without providing a clear and reasoned justification for why it is the most appropriate Arm’s Length Price in the given circumstances.
  • Receivables as Short-Term Financing: Outstanding receivables are treated for transfer pricing purposes as a form of short-term, low-risk capital financing. The benchmark interest rate should reflect this, and rates applicable to long-term or high-risk loans are not appropriate.

No new adjustment can be made to book profit in a final assessment order.

Issue

Can an Assessing Officer make a fresh adjustment to the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the final assessment order if such an adjustment was not proposed in the preceding draft assessment order?

Facts

In the draft assessment order sent to the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) made no adjustment to the book profit for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB. However, when the final assessment order was passed, the AO included a new adjustment to the book profit that had not been previously proposed or mentioned in the draft order.

Decision

The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee.

  • It held that the AO cannot make any new adjustment in the final order that was not first included in the draft assessment order.
  • The entire purpose of the draft order and the subsequent DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) process is to put the assessee on notice of all proposed variations to their income and give them a chance to object.
  • The AO was directed to compute the final tax liability using the book profit as originally claimed by the assessee, without the new adjustment.

Key Takeways

  • The Sanctity of the Draft Assessment Order: The draft assessment order defines the complete scope of issues for the final assessment in cases involving transfer pricing or foreign companies. No new additions or adjustments can be included in the final order without being routed through this mandatory process.
  • A Core Principle of Natural Justice: Making a new adjustment in the final order is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee is denied the opportunity to be heard and to object to it before the appropriate forum (the DRP or the AO).

CSR donations are eligible for an 80G deduction, with specific exceptions.

Issue

Is a company entitled to a deduction under Section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a donation that also qualifies as a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013?

Facts

The assessee-company made contributions to four different charitable trusts as part of its CSR initiative and claimed a deduction for these donations under Section 80G. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim, arguing that since the assessee had classified the payment as CSR expenditure in its return, it was not eligible for the deduction.

Decision

The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee.

  • It pointed out that the Income-tax Act, in Section 80G, explicitly specifies only two instances where a CSR-related donation is not eligible for a deduction: contributions made to the Swachh Bharat Kosh and the Clean Ganga Fund.
  • Since the assessee’s donations were not made to either of these two specific funds but to other eligible charitable institutions, the general provisions of Section 80G were applicable.
  • The assessee was therefore fully entitled to the deduction.

Key Takeways

  • CSR and 80G Are Not Mutually Exclusive: An expenditure can be both a fulfillment of a company’s CSR obligation and a valid donation eligible for a tax deduction under Section 80G. The mandatory nature of CSR under the Companies Act does not automatically disqualify it from being a “donation” for income tax purposes.
  • Know the Specific Exceptions: The legal bar on claiming an 80G deduction for CSR spending is very narrow and is limited only to contributions made to the Swachh Bharat Kosh and the Clean Ganga Fund. Donations made to any other registered and eligible trust or fund remain deductible.
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH
Lowe’s Services India (P.) Ltd.
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore
Prashant Maharishi, Vice President
and Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member
ITA No.1734 (Bang) of 2024
[Assessment year 2020-21]
SEPTEMBER  8, 2025
Chavali Narayan, AR for the Appellant. Dr. Divya K J, CIT(DR)(ITAT) for the Respondent.
ORDER
Prashant Maharishi, Vice President.- This appeal is filed by Lowe’s Services India Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2020-21 against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144C of the Act in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel — 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ” Ld. DRP), Bengaluru dated 07 June 2024 under section 144C(5), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 19.7.2024 by the Assessment Unit of the Income Tax Department [ld. AO], wherein the returned income of Rs.78,61,52,120/- filed on 12.2.2021 was assessed at Rs.81,69,44,038/-.
2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred the appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal:-
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law:
General grounds
1. The impugned orders passed by the Ld. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) and the directions of the Hon’ble DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts of the case and incorrect interpretation of law therefore erroneous, bad in law.
2. The Ld. AO/ DRP erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 81,69,44,040/- as against the returned income of INR 78,61,52,120/-.
Grounds relating to Transfer pricing matters:
3. Adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables amounting to INR 1,98,60,669/-.
3.1 The Ld. AO/ TPO/ DRP grossly erred in determining a transfer pricing adjustment on account of the interest on outstanding receivables amounting to INR 1,98,60,669/-.
Without prejudice to our ground of objection 3.1 above, the Ld. AO/TPO/DRP erred in law and in facts:
(a)By not appreciating that the outstanding trade receivables from AEs are arising from provision of software development services (“SWD”) & information technology enabled services — business support services (“ITeS-BSS”) and should be considered as closely linked to the said service transaction and not be tested separately from arm’s length perspective.
(b)By re-characterizing the outstanding receivables as on 31 March 2020 as a loan transaction.
(c)By computing the interest on receivables from AEs till the date of collection instead of restricting the interest till 31 March 2020.
(d)By ignoring that weighted average receivable period of the Appellant is 38 days, which is less than the weighted average receivable period of the final list of comparable of the Ld. TPO post DRP directions i.e., 60 days.
(e)Without prejudice to the above, if outstanding receivables are considered as unsecured loans, benefit must be given of Circular dated 01.04.2020 through which Reserve Bank of India provides for a collection period of 9 months for export receivables which had been extended up to 15 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
(f)Without prejudice to the above, Ld. AO/TPO/DRP have erred in law and in facts by imputing a separate addition for interest on delayed collection of receivables by ignoring that the Appellant had already recovered alleged shortfall on account of delayed receivables by way of excess service income received from Its AEs.
Grounds relating to corporate tax matter
4. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in the facts of the case by considering the disallowance of INR 1,32,825/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act twice in the assessment order, when the same was already included in the enhanced income as per the intimation order under Section 143(1) processed by the Centralized Processing Centre.
5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law and in the facts by considering the incorrect amount of book profit of INR 1,58,55,16,806/- as against book profit claimed in the return of income of INR 1,18,10,19,785/- resulting in incorrect tax liability in the hands of the Appellant.
6. The Ld. AO has erred In non-grant of MAT credit of INR 2,25,79,720/- while arriving at the tax liability in the hands of the Appellant.
7. The Ld. AO has erred in non-grant of credit for the Tax Deducted at Source of INR 2,35,452/- while arriving at the tax liability in the hands of the Appellant.
8. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in the facts of the case in disallowing the deduction of INR 76,48,794/-claimed by the Appellant under Section 80G of the Act.
9. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 3,38,11,128/- under Section 234B. The Levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act is consequential in nature.
10. The Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 8,162/-under Section 234C. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated that interest liability under Section 234C of the Act is to be computed based on the returned income and cannot be increased based on the assessed income as per Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 1448 of the Act.
Grounds relating to other matter :
11. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in fact, in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act
3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a private limited company incorporated on 28.6.2013 as a joint venture between LHIC Netherlands and ANSR NC JV Holdings LLC with Lowe’s US, being ultimate parent entity of Lowe’s group. It provides software development services and ITeS business support services to Lowe’s US to help Lowe’s Group further in its transformation to be an Omni-channel retailer with advanced web search, mobile and social systems. The return was picked up for scrutiny and referred to ld. TPO, DCIT, TP 2(1)(1), Bangalore to determine the ALP of the international transaction.
4. Assessee has rendered provision of IT services amounting to Rs.680,90,08,592 and provision of ITeS of Rs.148,98,98,953. The assessee has earned a margin of 16% in IT services and 18% in ITeS. The ld. TPO computed the margin at 17.09% for both the segments. The assessee adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method selecting the PLI of Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/OC). It used AceTP and Capitaline Databases for benchmarking its international transaction. The assessee selected 14 comparables for Software Development Services segment and 25 comparables for ITeS segment. As the margin was on par with the comparables, it is stated that international transaction of both these services is at arm’s length.
5. The ld. TPO held that filters used by the assessee out of which some of them are inappropriate and also assessee failed to use the appropriate filters, hence TP Study Report was rejected. The ld. AO carried out fresh search by using computer software and software services and consultancy for Software Development Services segment and ultimately reached at 18 comparables whose 35th percentile margin was 19.91, 65th percentile was 24.93 and median margin was 23.56. Based on this, the ALP was determined at Rs.718,51,88,173 against the price received of Rs.680,90,08,592 resulting into shortfall of Rs.37,61,79,581. With respect to the ITeS segment the TPO selected 17 comparables whose 35th percentile margin was 18.49, 65th percentile was 32.78 and median margin was 23.71. Accordingly on the international transaction of Rs.148,98,98,953, the ALP was computed at Rs.157,41,20,541. Thus shortfall of Rs.8,42,21,588 was arrived at.
6. The ld. TPO also found that there is a delay in outstanding receivable, therefore allowing 30 days credit period, he calculated interest @ 13.62% and computed interest of Rs.4,65,02,032.
7. Accordingly order u/s. 92CA(3) was passed making a total adjustment of Rs.50,69,03,201.
8. Based on this, the ld. AO passed a draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) on 27.9.2023 wherein the addition of Rs.50,69,03,201 was proposed on account of TP adjustment. A further disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) was made of Rs.132,825 on account of late payment to Provident Fund [PF]. A further addition of Rs.76,48,794 was made by disallowing deduction u/s. 80G of the Act out of CSR expenditure. Thus, total income was assessed at Rs.130,39,86,570. While computing the total income, the AO took the income processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act of Rs.78,93,01,750 against the returned income of Rs.78,61,52,120.
9. The assessee aggrieved with the same preferred objections before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [ld. DRP], who passed the direction on 7.6.2024. Based on this, the ld. TPO gave effect to the said direction vide order dated 8.7.2024 wherein the adjustment of Software Development Services segment and ITeS segment was deleted. Further the interest on delayed receivable adjustment of Rs.4,65,02,032 was determined at Rs.1,98,60,669. This is due to the direction of the ld. DRP to charge interest rate on the basis of LIBOR rate at 5.817% p.a.
10. Based on this, the final assessment order was passed on 19.7.2024 wherein the only Transfer pricing issue of interest on overdue receivable remained with upward TP adjustment of Rs.1,98,60,669, deduction claimed u/s. 80G of Rs.76,48,794 and disallowance u/s. 36(1) (va) of Rs.132,825.
11. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general in nature. No arguments were advanced and therefore the same are dismissed.
12. Ground No.3 is adjustment on account of interest on outstanding receivables amounting to Rs.1,98,60,669.
13. The ld. AR argued that
1.the TPO has computed the interest till date of collection which should have been restricted upto 31.3.2020. He referred to Annexure-A of the OGE to the DRP directions and submitted that at sl. Nos. 1, 6, 7 to 9, 13, 17, 19, 21, 25 & 27, the ld. TPO has computed interest which is not pertaining to this year.
2.in fact the weighted average period of receivable of the assessee is 38 days only which is less than the weighted average period of 60 days in most of the comparables post-DRP direction and therefore no addition could have been made.
3.that as per ground of objection No.14 the assessee has considered for difference in working capital position of the assessee vis-a-vis the comparable companies. This argument has been rejected as per para 15 of the direction of the DRP. He submitted that if working capital adjustment is granted, there cannot be any separate adjustment on account of overdue interest receivable when TNMM is applied as the most appropriate method.
4.that the ld. DRP has directed that LIBOR+350 Basis Points should be considered for computing notional interest on outstanding receivables. It was submitted that as the amount is due from its AE, 350 Basis Points further added to the LIBOR or the LIBOR itself is not the correct benchmarking. It was submitted that the benchmarking rate adopted by the ld. DRP which was used by the TPO in OGE order is excessive and incorrect.
14. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld. DRP. It was submitted that as assessee has not benchmarked this transaction, now assessee cannot question the benchmarking of the same. With respect to LIBOR+350 Basis Points computed by the DRP, the same is appropriate and should be upheld.
15. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The brief facts show that interest on delayed receivables computed by the TPO was Rs.4,65,02,032/- by taking the interest rate @ 13.62% p.a. being SBI PLR. The ld. TPO for adopting the above rate has categorically held that if in case the invoices are used in domestic currency i.e., Rupees, the interest rate is supposed to be charged on the basis of average SBI PLR of 13.62% p.a. and if the invoices have been raised in foreign currency, the interest rate is supposed to be charged on the basis of mark-up on prevailing LIBOR rate during the year. Based on this, the ld. TPO pointed out that the invoices are prepared in Rupees adopting 13.62% interest rate.
16. The assessee challenged the same before the DRP wherein at para 17.10 the ld. DRP directed the TPO to adopt LIBOR based rates. The DRP at para 17.10.6 has held that RBI Master Circular on ECB dated 23.6.2019 specifies a cost ceiling of 6 months LIBOR+350 Basis Points where the average maturity period is between 3 & 5 years. The DRP held that as there is no credit rating furnished by the assessee, it directed to take ceiling rate of 6 months LIBOR+350 Basis Points as the most suitable CUP and then adjust it for other risks and costs. Based on this, the TPO passed OGE on 8.7.2024. The TPO computed US $ LIBOR 6 months average at 2.317% and added there a mark-up of 350 Basis Points resulting in the interest rate of 5.817%. We find that the DRP has directed the TPO to charge adhoc rates without any basis. The ld. DRP also did not give any reason that why interest rate as per RBI Master Circular should be adopted AND How It is ALP. LIBOR rates are for the maturity period between 1 week to 12 months. It directed the TPO to apply in case of assessee where in outstanding overdue is for a period of some days. Even RBI has also given guidance to cease the use of LIBOR on 8/7/2021. Therefore, the method adopted by the DRP is adhoc and without any basis and hence deserves to be rejected.
17. It is a case of capital financing between two AE; therefore, it should be benchmarked as loan transaction for a noticeably brief period between two related parties where there is a minimum risk as it is transaction between holding company to subsidiary or a joint venture company. As LIBOR is not appropriate base rates, bills are denominated in us currency, SOFR or any other appropriate rates, may also be adopted.
18. In view of the above facts, we restore the whole issue back to the file of the ld. AO with directions to the assessee to benchmark the outstanding receivable based on currency in which invoices are prepared. Appropriate mark-up thereon or reduction from that interest bank rate would depend upon the risk factors involved in the above transaction which is between the holding company/AE and its subsidiary. The ld. AO thereafter may examine in accordance with the provisions of section 92CA for the determination of ALP of the international transaction and then decided the issue afresh. The assessee is also entitled to raise an issue that if in the international transaction of Software Development Services segment and ITeS segment, working capital adjustment is granted to the assessee, no separate addition is required to be made. Therefore, this aspect is also left to be adjudicated by the ld. AO. In view of these facts, ground No.3 of the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. AO.
19. Coming to ground No.4, it was submitted that disallowance of Rs.132,825 was a double addition because it was first disallowed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently once again while framing the final assessment order. The ld. DR submitted that the same may be verified.
20. In view of the above facts, we direct the ld. AO that if there is a double addition of Rs.132,825 once in the proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Act and then in the final assessment order, it deserves to be deleted, we direct to delete the disallowance. Ground No.4 is allowed.
21. Ground No.5 is with respect to the incorrect amount of book profit computed by the AO while computing the income tax liability u/s. 115JB of the Act. It was submitted that book profit computation as per s. 115JB is of Rs.118,10,19,785 against which the ld. AO computed the same at Rs.158,55,16,806.
22. After hearing both the parties, we find that in the draft assessment order we do not find any such computation. We also do not find any direction of the ld. DRP on the same. While looking at the final assessment order, we find that in the tax computation sheet, the deemed income computed u/s. 115JB at sl.No.19 is at Rs.158,55,16,806. First of all, if there is adjustment to the book profit of the assessee, it was not made in the draft assessment order. As the assessee says that the correct book profit is Rs.118,10,19,785, the ld. AO could not have made any adjustment to the book profit in the final assessment order without first putting it into the draft assessment order. As there is no adjustment to the book profit in the draft assessment order, the ld. AO is directed to take the book profit of Rs.118,10,19,785 only for computing the tax liability of the assessee. Accordingly ground No.5 is allowed.
23. As per ground No.6 assessee has a grievance that MAT credit of Rs.2,25,79,720 was not granted to the assessee and further as per ground No.7 credit for TDS of Rs.2,35,452 was denied.
24. After hearing both the parties, we direct the ld. AO to verify the above facts and grant MAT credit as well as credit for TDS in accordance with law.
25. As per ground No.8 assessee has challenged the action of the AO in disallowing deduction of Rs.76,48,794 u/s. 80G of the Act.
26. The brief facts show that during the year, assessee has contributed Rs.1,52,97,588 to 4 different charitable trusts. It claimed deduction u/s. 80G on the same @ 50% amounting to Rs.76,48,794. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee furnished deduction receipt and bank statements, but failed to furnish certificate of exemption u/s. 80G. Therefore a show cause notice was issued. In response to that, assessee submitted copies of the certificate of exemption for FY 2018-19 and submitted that approval granted is one time approval which would be valid till it is withdrawn. The ld. AO held that assessee failed to submit complete documentary evidence and in the return of income assessee has shown it as CSR expenditure. Therefore deduction u/s. 80G of Rs.76,48,794 was disallowed.
27. The assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP which gave a direction that the allowance of deduction u/s. 80G on CSR expenditure wholly defeats the legislative intent behind introducing the CSR expenditure which is share of the burden of the Govt. sector by the corporate sector and accordingly the order of the AO was upheld.
28. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. Assessee submits that assessee has produced the donation receipt, 80G approval certificates and based on this, it claimed deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. He submits that except Swachh Bharat Abhiyan Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund, assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80G of CSR expenditure. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of FNF India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Bengaluru and Axis Securities v. PCIT, Mumbai.
29. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of ld. lower authorities.
30. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The solitary issue in this ground is that assessee is denied deduction u/s. 80G of the Act of CSR expenditure, donations given to other charitable trusts. It is an admitted fact that donation was not given to Swachh Bharat Abhiyan Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. If donation is given to these two organisations, then only assessee can be denied deduction u/s. 80G. This issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the coordinate Bench in FNF India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT  251 (Bangalore – Trib.) and Axis Securities Ltd. v. Pr. CIT  982 (Mumbai – Trib.). Accordingly we allow ground No.8 of the assessee and direct the ld. AO to grant donation u/s. 80G of the act amounting to Rs.76,48,794.
31. Ground Nos. 9 & 10 are consequential in nature with respect to chargeability of interest and therefore same are dismissed.
32. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.