Section 94B(2)

Section 94B(2) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 94B(2), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Noida Towers Private Limited v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I already disallowed the whole of the interest paid to my associated enterprise under s.94B in my own computation. The TPO has still made a transfer pricing adjustment on the same interest. Can he?
  Not on these facts. Where the assessee had itself added back the entire interest paid to its associated enterprises on non-convertible debentures under s.94B in its computation of income and paid tax on it, the Tribunal held that a further disallowance out of the same interest by way of a transfer pricing adjustment would amount to double taxation of the same income and was not permissible, and it directed the adjustment to be deleted.
• Beauty Etoile Private Limited v Assessment Unit ITATHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The TPO has used the 30 per cent EBITDA cap in s.94B as his benchmarking method and has applied it to interest I capitalised to work in progress rather than claimed. Can he do either?
  Neither. Section 94B is a restriction on the deduction of interest, not a method of determining an arm's length price, and it cannot be imported into the 'other method' under Rule 10AB, which requires a price charged or paid in an uncontrolled transaction with or between non-associated enterprises. And s.94B bites only on interest which is deductible in computing business income, so interest capitalised to work in progress and not claimed as a deduction in the year cannot be brought into the disallowance at all.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.