ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. This was because the assessee had entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) which covered the impugned assessment year, and the revised return and Form 3CEF were accepted by the AO.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing transfer pricing adjustments for interest on loan and corporate guarantee. The assessee is engaged in coal import and power trading.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)'s order reducing transfer pricing adjustments for interest on loan and corporate guarantee was correct, and the impact of a subsequent Advance Pricing Agreement on the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.
This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)-44, new Delhi dated 30.11.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The ld AO has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in giving relief to the assessee by reducing the rate of Interest from L1BOR+400(4.96231%) to 2.11% for the transaction pertaining to „Interest on Loan to AE‟ by completely ignoring the direction of Hon‟ble High Court in the case of M/s Cotton Naturals (I) (P) Ltd. and various tribunal judgments? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse in giving relief to the assessee by reducing the rate of Interest from LIBOR+400(4.96231%) to 2.1 for the transaction pertaining to „Interest on Loan to AE‟ by relying on the TPO‟s stand in previous AY, without appreciating the fact there is no res judicata in income tax proceedings and in the process neglected the judgement of various courts and tribunals? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse, deleting the adjustment made by the TPO regarding the Corporate Guarantee, by allowing Corporate Guarantee fees at mere 0.25% instead of the 1.30% levied by the TPO, whereas if the Safe Harbour Rules laid down under Income Tax Rules were to be followed, the assessee should have had accept the fees at 2%? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the order of Ld. C1T(A) is perverse deleting the adjustment made by the TPO regarding the Corporate Guarantee without appreciating the fact that there is no res judicata in income tax Page | 1
More judgments on Section 92CA
- Bellsonica Auto Component India Private… vs ACIT, Circle-1(1), GurgaonITA 1041/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Smartstream Technologies India Private… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2220/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Airmeet Networks Private Limited, Bengaluru vs Assessing Officer, BengaluruITA 1487/BANG/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026