Loading judgment…
Facts
The case involves cross-appeals by Tata Consumer Products Limited (assessee) and the Revenue for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12. The disputes pertain to the classification of corporate guarantees as international transactions under Section 92B and their Arm's Length Price, and disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 1183/KOL/2023 and 506/KOL/2024 were filed with a delay, which the Tribunal condoned.
Held
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, affirming that corporate guarantees are international transactions and upholding the CIT(A)'s restriction of the Arm's Length Price for corporate guarantee fees to 0.5%. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals, thereby upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A additions by accepting the assessee's suo moto disallowance, consistent with previous tribunal decisions.
Key Issues
Whether corporate guarantees fall within the definition of international transactions under Section 92B; the correct Arm's Length Price for corporate guarantee fees; and the validity of disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.
Sections Cited
92B, 14A, 10(34)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM & 748/KOL/2023 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Tata Consumer Products JCIT (IN SITU)& DCIT, Cir-4 Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Bishop Lefroy rod, Chowringhee Square, 8 th Floor, L.R Sarani SO Vs. Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700020 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) &506/KOL/2024 (Assessment Years:2010-11 &2011-12) Tata Consumer Products JCIT (IN SITU) Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 1, Bishop Lefroy rod, Chowringhee Square, 8 th Floor, L.R Sarani SO Vs. Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-700020 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT0602K Assessee by : Shri Ashik Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Arup Chatterjee, DR Date of hearing: 11.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 17.03.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
These cross appeals are preferred by the assessee and Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-22 (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 30.05.2023 for the AY 2010-11 &2011-12 respectively.
The ground no. 1 is general in nature and therefore, requires no adjudication.
The issue raised in ground no.2, is against the order of ld. AO/Transfer Pricing Officer holding that the corporate guarantee given by the appellant on behalf of its Associated Enterprises falls within the definition of international transactions u/s 92B of the Act.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the issue is a recurring one in the assessee own case and has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench in in vide order dated 13.02.2023 in assessee’s own case, wherein it has been held that the corporate guarantee transactions are international transactions and accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
The issue raised in ground no.3 is against the order of the ld. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer not following the binding order of Tribunal in and 1899/KOL/2017 vide order dated 13th February, 2023 in assessee’s own case, wherein the Arm’s Length Price corporate guarantee fee has been restricted to 0.5%.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. CIT (A) has already followed the decision of the co-ordinate Bench and restricted the Arm’s Length Price of corporate guarantee fee at 0.5% by following the above decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the ground o. 3 raised by the assessee and accordingly, same is dismissed.
ITA No.:748/KOL/2023
The ground raised by the assessee from 1 to 3 are similar to ones as decided in A.Y. 2010-11(supra). Therefore, our decision in would apply mutatis mutandis appeal to for A.Y. 2011-12. Consequently, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
ITA No.:1183/KOL/2023
At the outset, we observe on the basis of records before us that the appeal filed by the Revenue in is barred by limitation by 75 days, for which the condonation petition was filed by the revenue. We observe from the said condonation petition that the reasons cited for dealy in late filing the appeal were on account of taking administrative and hierarchial approvals at various stages, which caused the delay in filing the appeal. Since, we find the reasons is genuine and bonafide, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.
The only issue raised by the assessee is against the deletion of addition of ₹1,80,74,565/- as made by the AO u/s 14A r.w.s Rule 8D of the Rules.
We note that the issue is similar to one has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in for A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 13.02.2023. We note that during the relevant assessment year, the assessee has earned a dividend income of ₹3,655.20 lacs and the claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. Against the said income, the assessee has suo moto “16. Now, we are taking the next common issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act raised commonly in ground no. 3 for AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14. We observe that the assessee suo moto made a disallowance of Rs. 46,72,000/- & Rs. 58,78,000/- u/s 14A of the Act towards expenditure related to exempt income. Ld. AO examined the quantification of the said disallowance but was not satisfied and observed that the company managed its investment portfolio by using the common establishment/infrastructure and therefore, it is not possible to justify the working adopted for computing the disallowance without applying the provision of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. We, further observe that similar issue came up before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 to AY 2009-10 wherein also similar observation was made by ld. AO and this Tribunal after considering the facts of the case and also considering the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of H.T. Media Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in [2017] 85 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi) deleted the disallowance made by ld. AO applying Rule 8Dof the Rules and accepted the suo moto disallowance made by ld. AO. Since the issue remains the same and the facts are identical, we therefore, taking the consistent view and also considering the fact that most of the investments held by the assessee are brought forward from preceding year and also the major portion of the investment is in the sister/group concerns of the assessee and thus, reverse the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made by ld. AO and accept the suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee. Thus, common ground no. 3 raised by the assessee are allowed.”
Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) and accordingly ,uphold the same by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
ITA No.:506/KOL/2024
The only issue raised is against the deletion of disallowance as made by the ld. AO u/s 14 read with Rule 8D of the Act amounting to ₹1,88,97,000/- which was computed by the ld. AO after working out the disallowance at ₹2,14,45,000/- and after deducting the suo moto disallowance of ₹25,48,000/- a net addition of ₹1,88,97,000/- was made. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the above addition. Since, we have already dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on this issue in accordingly, our decision would , mutatis mutandis , apply to this appeal as well. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, all the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2025.