Interest Imbalance: Will the disproportionate interest Split in Loan Transfers be liable to withholding tax?

ITAT Ruling Clarifies Taxation on Disproportionate Interest share in Loan Transfers

– Dayita Kanodia | Finserv@vinodkothari.com

Direct Assignment of a loan or transfer of loan exposures refers to the process where financial institutions, such as banks, purchase a pool of loans or assets from other entities, typically NBFCs, without the involvement of a third-party intermediary. In this arrangement, the buying institution directly acquires the ownership of the loans or assets and the associated rights, including the right to receive future payments from the borrowers. This method allows the selling NBFC to offload its loans, thereby freeing up capital, while the purchasing institution gains the opportunity to enhance its loan portfolio and earn interest income from the acquired loans. This Direct Assignment is essentially what is popularly known as the transfer of loan exposure.

The RBI issued the transfer of loan exposures directions in 2021 regulating all transactions among regulated entities involving transfer of loan exposures.

Interest sharing and servicing after the transfer

Pursuant to a transfer of loan, it is not necessary that the future interest income arising from the loans would be shared in the same proportion as that of the transfer. For instance, if an NBFC assigns 90% of the loan portfolio to a bank, there is no mandate that all interest income received in the future would be shared in the same proportion of 90:10. Generally, the borrower is not made aware of the transfer and therefore it is important that the NBFC continues to service the loan. In such cases it is only fair that the NBFC gets a higher proportion of interest. Accordingly, it is quite common in direct assignment transactions to have a disproportionate interest share. 

The question which now arises is whether this excess interest income retained by the NBFC would be taxable under the provisions of the income tax act. 

ITAT Ruling and taxation on disproportionate interest share in loan transfers

A recent ITAT ruling of May 7, 2024 clarifies the taxation treatment for disproportionate interest share in case of loan transfers. In this case, NBFC assigned 90% of the loan portfolio to a bank via the direct assignment route. However, the bank was not receiving the entire interest on the 90% loan assigned but was only entitled to a fixed percentage of share while the NBFC retained the excess interest. Accordingly, the revenue department was of the view that the assessee was responsible to deduct TDS on the excess interest allowed to be retained by the NBFC under section 194A of the Income Tax Act. 

The revenue department further raised the question on deduction of TDS under SEction 194J and 194H of the Income Tax Act. 

Interest Retained not a result of money borrowed or debt incurred by the transferee

For the deciding the fate of the NBFC under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, the following was observed by the ITAT:

1. For TDS to be deducted under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, the crucial aspect to be satisfied was whether the part interest allowed to be retained by the originating NBFC by the bank is payment in the nature of interest to the NBFC for any money borrowed or debt incurred by the bank.

2. It was acknowledged that the 90% of the loan portfolio was assigned to the bank and consequently any default among the assigned loans would result in loss to the bank. 

3. Any amount collected from the borrowers was initially getting deposited in an escrow account and was subsequently distributed between the NBFC and the bank in accordance with the agreement entered into by the entities. 

4. It could not be shown that the interest allowed to be retained with the NBFC was a result of any money borrowed or debt incurred by the bank from the NBFC. 
5. Accordingly, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS on the excess interest retained by the NBFC under section 194A. 

Interest retained not in the nature of fees for any professional / technical services rendered by the transferor

The next issue which was adjudicated in the case was whether the interest allowed to be retained with the NBFC was a consideration for rendering professional / technical services by the transferor NBFC to the transferee bank. 

As per section 194J of the Act, any person, not being an individual or HUF, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum, inter alia, by way of fees for professional services or fees for technical services shall at the time of credit of such sum to the account of payee deduct tax at source.

For this purpose the ITAT observed the following:

1. The NBFC and the Bank entered into a tripartite service agreement pursuant to which the originating NBFC was appointed as servicer for the loans. The NBFC was therefore responsible for managing, collecting and receiving payment of the receivable and depositing the same in the ‘Collection and Payout Account’ to enable the distribution of the payout therefrom and providing certain other services.

2. As per the service agreement, a one time service fee of Rs.1 Lakh was agreed to be payable by the bank to the NBFC as consideration for the services rendered.

3. The ITAT brushed aside the contention of the revenue department that service fee of Rs 1L was inadequate and the excess interest allowed to be retained by the NBFC should in fact be considered as fee for rendering the services by the transferor NBFC. 

4. There was a separate tripartite Deed of Assignment of receivables entered into by the parties according to which the bank paid the entire principal amount equivalent to 90% of the entire pool to the NBFC upfront. However, it was observed that the transfer being an independent commercial transaction cannot be on a cost to cost basis without there being any markup.

5. Accordingly, the bank opted to pay the consideration for the loans assigned partially by way of an upfront payment equivalent to the principal amount of the loan assigned to it and partly by agreeing to earn a lower rate of interest on its portion of assigned loans and allowing the NBFC to retain the part interest received from the borrower.

6. Therefore the liability under section 194J of the Income Tax Act was only for the service fee of Rs.1 L and cannot be extended to the excess interest share retained by the NBFC.

7. Accordingly, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS on the excess interest share retained by the NBFC under section 194J of the Income Tax Act. 

Interest retained not in the nature of commission / brokerage

The last issue in this case to be decided before the ITAT was whether the retained interest would fall in the category of commission or brokerage and was liable to TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. 

As per section 194H of the Act, any person, not being an individual or HUF, who is responsible for paying to a resident, any income by way of commission or brokerage, shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee deduct tax.

For determining the tax treatment under this section, the ITAT observed the following:

1. It could not be said that the loans originated by the NBFC were on behalf of the bank.

2. For the services rendered by the NBFC, it was observed that the same was pursuant to a separate service agreement which provides for payment of separate service fees in lieu of such services.

3. Accordingly, it cannot be contended that the transferor NBFC was acting as an agent of the transferee bank.

4. Accordingly, the liability to deduct TDS on the excess interest retained by the NBFC under section 194H of the Income Tax Act does not arise. 

Concluding Remarks 

In conclusion, the recent ITAT ruling has provided significant clarity on the taxation treatment of disproportionate interest shares in loan transfers, particularly in the context of Direct Assignment transactions. 

In this case, the ITAT emphasized that the interest retained by the NBFC was not a result of any money borrowed or debt incurred by the bank. Additionally, it was clarified that the interest retained did not constitute fees for professional or technical services rendered by the transferor NBFC, nor did it fall within the ambit of commission or brokerage.

As the financial landscape continues to evolve, such judicial pronouncements play a crucial role in fostering transparency, compliance, and fairness in taxation.