DCIT- CC -8 (1), MUMBAI vs. ALL CARGO LOGISTICS LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2488/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 June 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the adjustment should be restricted to 0.5%. This was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and a High Court decision.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict a transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantee from 2% to 0.5%. The assessee had provided a corporate guarantee to its foreign affiliate.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the appropriate rate for calculating the arm's length price for corporate guarantee services provided to an associated enterprise.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal
For Respondent: Shri Smrudhi D. Hande
Hearing: 21.06.2022Pronounced: 22.06.2022

The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by learned CIT(A)-55, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2012- 13. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in restricting the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee to 0.5% of the guaranteed amount as against 2% determined by the TPO.

2.

Learned AR submitted that the assessee had provided corporate guarantee of Rs. 115.43 crores to Allcargo Belgium NV. The TPO adopted rate of 2% as guarantee commission and accordingly proposed transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2.09 crores. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee challenged the same by filing the appeal before learned CIT(A). He submitted that learned CIT(A) noticed that guarantee commission was adopted at 0.50% in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 and the same was also supported by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57). Accordingly learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-compute transfer pricing adjustment on account

2 M/s.Allcargo Logistics Ltd. of corporate guarantee given to AE at 0.50% of the guaranteed amount. The Learned AR submitted that the order so passed by learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference, since learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court as well as decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA No. 4786/Mum/2015.

3.

On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by Assessing Officer/TPO.

4.

Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that the decision rendered by learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference as the learned CIT(A) has rendered his decision by following decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court as well as the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases referred above. Accordingly, we confirm the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.06.2022.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →