a) Assessee had advanced an optionally convertible loan to its associated enterprise (AE). The tenure of loan was five years and the lender had the option for repayment or for conversion of loan into equity at par with the company at any time during the tenure of the loan.
b) Assessee did not provide for any interest on said loan. TPO was of the view that merely because loan was convertible into equity, it did not alter its character as loan at the relevant point of time, and once that was so, the benchmarking of loan was to be done as per the prevailing market rate.
c) TPO made addition to assessee's ALP in respect of interest on loan to AE.
d) The DRP confirmed said addition. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.
Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:-
1) The transaction in question was not of the transaction of lending money to AE. Amount advanced to the AE was attached with the obligation of the AE to issue share capital, in case the assessee exercised option for the same, on certain conditions, which were admittedly more favourable, and at an agreed price, which was admittedly much lower, vis-à-vis the conditions and price which independent enterprise would normally agree to accept.
2) The lending was thus in the nature of quasi-capital in the sense that substantive reward, or true consideration, for such a loan transaction was not interest simplictor on amount advanced but opportunity to own capital on certain favourable terms.
3) Usually loan transactions are benchmarked on the basis of interest rate applicable on the loan transactions simplictor which, under the transfer pricing regulations, cannot be compared with a transaction which is something materially different than a loan simplictor. For example, a non-refundable loan which is to be converted into equity. It is in this context that the loans, which are in the nature of quasi-capital, are treated differently than the normal loan transactions.
4) However, what the authorities had held that a quasi-capital transaction can be compared with a simple loan transaction where sole motivation and consideration for the lender is the interest on such loan.
5) Keeping in mind these factors, as also entirety of the case, it was fit and proper to delete the arm's length price adjustment in respect of interest which, according to the revenue authorities, assessee should have charged on the optionally convertible loan granted to the AEs. -  80 taxmann.com 24 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)