Aries Agro Ltd. vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Court: ITAT Mumbai
Bench: Narendra Kumar Billaiya and Rahul Chaudhary
Date: October 7, 2024
Assessment Year: 2020-21
Overview
Aries Agro Ltd., a manufacturer of micronutrients and fertilizers, transferred funds to its Associated Enterprise (AE) in the UAE as share application money. These funds were designated to support the establishment of a manufacturing facility in Sharjah’s SAIF Zone. However, due to administrative delays in receiving approvals from the SAIF Zone Authority, the issuance of shares to Aries Agro Ltd. was postponed. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) challenged this delay, recharacterizing the remittance as an interest-free loan, leading to an addition to income based on imputed interest.
Key Question
The central issue was whether the remittance should be treated as a loan (due to the delay in share allotment) and thus subject to interest adjustments or if it should remain classified as share application money as originally intended by Aries Agro Ltd.
Facts and Arguments
Purpose of the Funds: Aries Agro Ltd. maintained that the funds were intended for equity investment and that the delay was solely due to pending regulatory approval required in the SAIF Zone, which was outside their control.
TPO’s View: The TPO argued that the prolonged delay suggested the remittance was functioning as an implicit loan and, therefore, should bear an interest charge. As a result, the TPO proposed an adjustment, treating the transaction as a loan and calculating interest accordingly.
Assessee’s Defense: Aries Agro Ltd. countered that this delay was procedural and that they had been transparent about the purpose of the funds from the start. They also pointed to past decisions in similar cases that upheld the treatment of such remittances as equity investments rather than loans.
Tribunal’s Findings
Past Decisions: The Tribunal acknowledged previous judgments in favor of Aries Agro Ltd. that classified similar transactions as equity investments. These decisions were referenced to affirm that the share application funds had been intended for equity purposes in prior years, not as loans.
Revenue’s Burden of Proof: The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue had not provided evidence to prove that the funds should be treated as a loan. The onus was on the Revenue to substantiate any loan characterization by investigating the reasons for the delay, but no such verification was undertaken.
Absence of Revenue’s Verification: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not pursue verification from the SAIF Zone Authority or Aries Agro’s AE in UAE to substantiate its claims. The Tribunal found no evidence to dispute Aries Agro’s explanation that the delay stemmed from regulatory procedures beyond their control.
Decision
The Tribunal ruled in favor of Aries Agro Ltd., holding that the remittance should be treated as share application money and not as an interest-free loan. The proposed transfer pricing addition was deleted as the delay was found to be procedural rather than intentional.
This judgment underscores that, in cross-border transactions, the purpose of a remittance must be evaluated in light of regulatory requirements. Without clear evidence of loan characteristics, share application funds intended for equity should not be reclassified merely due to administrative delays.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment