Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM
In these cases, three appeals pertaining to the same assessee involving common issue are heard together and disposed off by this common order.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 11(1)(2), (learned Assessing Officer) and CO No.320/Mum/2018 is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-58, [the learned CIT (A)], Mumbai, dated 22nd February, 2017.
In Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:-
"i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the earned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,89,028/- made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D of the L.T. Rules without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed in the profit and loss account interest expense of Rs.38,07,55,000/- under finance cost, selling and general administrative expenses of Rs.34,26,000/- and personnel cost of Rs. 38,24,000/- or the fact that the assessee was unable to prove the direct nexus between its own funds or funds used for business purposes and investment made for earning exempt income or expenditure incurred for business purposes" iii. "The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O be restored." iv. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary."
In CO. No. 320/Mum/2017, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CITA) erred in restricting the adjustment @ 1.5% amounting to Rs. 35,44,373/- as corporate guarantee fees on corporate given to M/s Unimark Remedies Hong Kong Ltd (AE) on the basis of order u/s 92CA(3) on the grounds as contained in the order or otherwise.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CITA erred in confirming the addition to the extent Rs. 6,43,393/- by invoking the provisions of
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CITA erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in adding the disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D amounting to Rs. 67,32,421/-in computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act,1961 on the grounds stated in the impugned order or otherwise.”
The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical and other health related products. It files its return of income on 30th September, 2010 at a loss of ₹14,65,11,657/-. As the assessee entered into international transaction with its Associated Enterprises, matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer on perusal of the records found that assessee has issued corporate guarantee on behalf of its Associated Enterprises of ₹6,738 lacs to standard chartered bank, Hongkong Ltd but assessee has not charged any commission on issue of such corporate guarantee. Therefore, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer found that it is an international transaction and made an addition of ₹70,88,745/- being 3% commission on the amount of guarantee. Three were also certain other transfer pricing adjustment, however same were not in dispute before us, hence not dismissed.
Assessee aggrieved, preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A). On the issue of corporate guarantee, the learned CIT (A) held that ALP of guarantee commission of 3% is on higher side and therefore, he directed the learned Transfer Pricing Officer to compute the guarantee commission at the rate of 1.5% based on guarantee rate chart by State Band of India. Further, with respect to Section 14A of the Act, he deleted the addition with respect to interest expenditure, however, retained the disallowance of 0.5% of ₹6,43,393/-. The learned Assessing Officer also made an addition of ₹17,10,111/- on account of AIR information which was denied by the assessee before the learned Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (A) held that as assessee does not have any transaction with the payer of the income and there is no evidence that such sum is received by the assessee, he held that additions solely on the basis of AIR information cannot be made.
We have heard the rival contentions.
Coming to the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer, the first ground of appeal is in relation to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act deleted by the learned Assessing Officer. The fact shows that assessee has received exempt income during the year of ₹53,286/-. Assessee did not offer any disallowance on its own. The learned Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules and computed the disallowance of ₹67,32,421/-. The learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of interest holding that the amount of investment made by the assessee in tax free income earning investment is less than assessee’s own non- interest bearing funds. However, the disallowance to the extent of administrative expenditure is confirmed. The claim of the assessee that exempt income earned by the assessee is merely ₹53,286/-, whereas disallowance far existed the same which is incorrect. It is an established fact that the disallowance of expenses for earning tax free
11. Ground no. 2 of the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is with respect to the addition deleted by the learned CIT (A) on account of AIR difference. The fact shows that there are three transactions with four parties amounting to ₹17,10,111/-, which were reflected in Form no. 26AS not claimed by the assessee as income. The learned Assessing Officer was explained that assessee does not have any dealing with those parties and tax credit is also not claimed by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer made the addition. The learned CIT (A) deleted the addition stating that when the assessee does not have any transaction with these parties, the income could not have been taxed in the hands of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT (A). The difference in Form no. 26AS with the books of account are triggered point for making further inquiry. When the
12. Coming to ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee with respect to benchmarking of corporate guarantee fee on corporate guarantee given to 100% subsidiary Unimark Remedies Hongkong Ltd., where the learned Transfer Pricing Officer computed the guarantee commission at the rate of 3% amounting to ₹70,88,745/-. The learned Transfer Pricing Officer found that State Bank of India has been offering financial guarantee of above ₹10 crores at the rate of 1.75% p.a. He further computed the adjustment of 1.25% on account of country foreign exchange and entity risk. Accordingly, Arms Length Price at the rate of 3% of the guarantee fee was determined and addition made. When the matter reached before the learned CIT (A), he examined the financial statements of the Associated Enterprises and thereafter, considered several judicial precedents and held that 1.5% of the guarantee commission is appropriate to reach at this conclusion. He held that 1.25% risk adjustment made by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer is not correct. Accordingly, upheld 1.5% of the guarantee commission.
Assessee is aggrieved and submits that the guarantee charged by the banks cannot be compared and used as
In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and Cross Objection of the assessee, are partly allowed.
For A.Y. 2011-12, the appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned CIT (A). The only issue in this appeal is benchmarking corporate guarantee issued to the subsidiary. As in A.Y. 2010-11, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the adjustment at the rate of 1.5% as
Accordingly, all three appeals including CO of the assessee are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.08.2022.