When a multinational engineering firm like Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. licenses technology across borders, the price it pays in the form of royalty can become a lightning rod for tax authorities. In the 2012‑13 assessment year, the Department of Central Excise and Tax (DCIT) argued that Praxair’s 4 % royalty was too generous, insisting it should have been capped at 1 %. The dispute, however, was not merely about a percentage; it was about the very methodology that underpins how multinational companies allocate profits to different jurisdictions.
Praxair’s financial structure added another layer of complexity. The company issued unsecured compulsorily convertible debentures (CCDs) that carried an interest rate. These instruments, while debt‑like, could be converted into equity, blurring the line between borrowing and equity issuance. The DCIT’s position was that the interest component should be benchmarked against LIBOR, a global interbank rate, at 4.13 %. Praxair, on the other hand, argued that the interest should reflect domestic borrowing costs, specifically the State Bank of India (SBI) prime lending rate.
The crux of the interest debate hinged on whether a foreign‑based rate like LIBOR was appropriate for a company operating in India. The tribunal’s decision to reject the LIBOR benchmark in favor of an INR‑based approach was significant. It underscored the principle that domestic interest rates should guide the valuation of financial instruments that are issued and used within India, especially when the instruments are unsecured and carry a high coupon.
The DCIT had originally imposed a 1 % royalty rate, arguing that the 4 % figure was excessive.
On 31 October 2026, the Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal delivered a verdict that resonated beyond Praxair. The court upheld the 4 % royalty rate for the 2012–13 assessment year and, crucially, affirmed the use of INR‑based interest benchmarking for the CCDs. The decision reversed the DCIT’s earlier imposition of a 1 % royalty and the LIBOR‑based interest rate of 4.13 %. In doing so, the tribunal set a clear precedent that domestic borrowing costs, not foreign rates, should govern the valuation of such instruments.
Beyond the royalty and interest, the case delved into the broader realm of transfer pricing. Praxair’s international transactions were scrutinized for their pricing mechanisms, and the tribunal examined whether the financial instruments were recharacterized correctly. The court’s analysis reaffirmed that transfer pricing should be grounded in arm’s‑length principles, taking into account the nature of the transaction and the economic realities of the parties involved.
The DCIT had originally imposed a 1 % royalty rate, arguing that the 4 % figure was excessive. The tribunal’s reversal of this stance was a decisive moment. By upholding the 4 % rate, the court recognized that the royalty was consistent with comparable transactions and that the company’s valuation methodology was sound. This reversal also meant that adjustment amounts originally levied were set aside.
A taxpayer sold property never filed an ITR and ignored tax notices for years. The tax department completed a best judgment assessment adding Rs 2.65 crore as capital gains alongside a Rs 90 lakh penalty. While ITAT Pune recently condoned the appeal delay to grant a fresh hearing Still penalty is payable if you think you can evade taxes then you are wrong. I still know few people who haven't filed their ITRs
The tribunal’s decision confirmed that the 4 % royalty was acceptable for the assessment year in question. This reinforced the notion that Praxair’s royalty structure had been stable and justified during the fiscal period, further bolstering the company’s position.
For other multinational enterprises operating in India, this ruling carries weight. It signals that the tax authorities will not automatically default to foreign benchmarks like LIBOR for domestic instruments. Instead, the focus will shift to domestic borrowing rates and the specific characteristics of the financial instruments in question. The decision also highlights the importance of robust transfer‑pricing documentation that aligns with arm’s‑length standards.
The tribunal’s judgment, with its detailed analysis of both royalty and interest, sets a new benchmark for future cases. By clarifying the appropriate benchmarks for domestic instruments, the court has provided a clearer roadmap for companies navigating the complex interplay between international agreements and Indian tax law.
Today, the Praxair case stands as a testament to the evolving nature of tax law in India. The ruling not only vindicated the company’s financial practices but also offered a clearer framework for how domestic interest rates should be applied in transfer‑pricing scenarios. As Indian multinationals continue to expand and innovate, the principles established in this case will likely guide both corporate strategy and tax compliance.