SIVA INDUSTRIES & HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As regards first argument of the learned counsel for the assessee on the issue of satisfaction as required to be recorded u/s.14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we find that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction having regard to books of account of the assessee and relevant expenditure incurred for the period when compared to exempt income earned by the assessee that disallowances computed u/s.14A of the Act is not correct and thus, in our considered view, said findings of the Assessing Officer constitute satisfaction as required u/s.14A of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 640 (SC) had very clearly held that question of recording satisfaction comes into play only when the assessee makes suo motu disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt income u/s.14A of the Act and only in those cases, the Assessing Officer is required to record his satisfaction as required u/s.14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In case, where there is no suo motu disallowance by the assessee, then question of recording satisfaction does not arise. In this case, on perusal of details available on record, we find that for the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10, the assessee does not make any suo motu disallowance and thus, question of the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction as required u/s.14A(2) of the Act does not arise.

Insofar as the assessment year 2010-11 & 2011-12, although, the assessee has made suo motu disallowance of expenses made relatable to exempt income u/s.14A of the Act, but the Assessing Officer before invoking provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962, has satisfied himself about disallowances made by the assessee having regard to books and thus, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction as required under sub-section (2) of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and thus, there is no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee on the issue of satisfaction and hence, ground raised by the assessee is rejected.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed.

In these appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue, only issue involved is transfer pricing adjustment made on account of corporate guarantee extended by the assessee to its AE and said issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide its order in 2108/Mds/2012, 687 & 884/Mds/2015 and 1074/Mds/2014 & C.O.No.52/Mds/2014, 706/Mds/2015 dated 07.10.2016 and both the parties have accepted decision rendered by the Tribunal on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment. However, the assessee has challenged order of the Tribunal dated 07.10.2016 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras only on the issue of disallowances u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 24.11.2020 set aside order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 only on the issue of disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, while listing appeals for disposal in pursuant to direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the Registry has listed appeals filed by the Revenue for very same assessment years, even though issues

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue / the assessee and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. (Assessment year 2011-12):

The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 to 2.2 of the Revenue appeal is disallowance made u/s.14A r.w.r 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. We find that an identical issue has been decided by us in 1039/Chny/2014 & 687/Chny/2015 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The reasons given by us in preceding paragraph No.6 to 9 in ITA Nos.2108/Chny/2012, 1039/Chny/2014 & 687/Chny/2015 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 shall mutatis mutandis shall apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for disallowances made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee amounting to Rs.6,02,87,668/- and delete balance amount of disallowances made u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.3 to 3.4 of the Revenue appeal is transfer pricing adjustment made on account of corporate guarantee extended by the assessee to its AE amounting to Rs.6,19,73,178/-. The Assessing Officer has made TP adjustment of Rs.6,19,73,178/- on corporate guarantee extended by the assessee to its AE by imputing guarantee commission @ 2.39% on total guarantee extended by the assessee to its AE.

The learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT., Chennai in the case of M/s. Indian Public School Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in IT(TP)A.No.34/Chny/2018 dated 15.06.2022, where the Tribunal by following decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (2015) international transaction, however, when it comes to benchmarking, guarantee commission charged by commercial banks cannot be applied. The Tribunal further held that 0.5% commission is reasonable rate for benchmarking corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE.

The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the CIT(A) submitted that corporate guarantee extended by the assessee to its AE is international transaction and same needs to be benchmarked by taking relevant factors, including risk involved in transactions. The TPO/Assessing Officer, after considering relevant facts has rightly imputed guarantee commission @ 2.39% on total corporate guarantee given by the assessee and thus, their orders should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As regards, first argument of the assessee that extending corporate guarantee is not international transaction, we find that Tribunal has considered an identical issue in the case of Indian Public School Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra) and held 1961, corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE is an international transaction. Therefore, first argument of the assessee is hereby rejected. As regards, rate at which such guarantee is required to be benchmarked, the Tribunal in the very same decision, after considering judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd (supra) had directed the TPO/A.O. to compute guarantee commission @ 0.5% on total corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “7. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. As regards the first argument of the assessee that providing corporate guarantee per se is not an international transaction, we find that the provisions of Sec.92B of the Act, has been amended to expand the definition of international transaction, as per which, lending or borrowing money or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more AEs for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such 17 687 & 884/Chny/2015 & CO No.52/Chny/2014 ITA Nos.1074/Chny/2014, 706/Chny/2015 & 919/Chny/2018 enterprise, is also an international transaction. From plain reading of definition, it is clear that lending or borrowing of money between two or more enterprises also comes under the definition of international transaction. Therefore, when the assessee has provided guarantee on behalf of its AE for availing loan facility, it definitely bearing on the profits or loss of the assessee and thus, it falls within the definition of international transaction and thus, providing corporate guarantee is an international transaction, which needs to be bench marked to determine ALP of such transaction. Therefore, the TPO has rightly held that providing corporate guarantee is an international transaction and hence, we reject the arguments of the Counsel for the assessee.

As regards imputing rate of commission on guarantee. It is a well settled principle of law by the decision of various courts, including the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra), wherein, It has been clearly held that no Comparison can be made between the guarantee issued by commercial banks as against corporate guarantee issued by holding company for benefit of its AE, a subsidiary company for computing ALP of guarantee commission. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court further held that when it comes rate of commission, at Which, such corporate guarantee needs to be bench marked, then depending upon each case, a reasonable rate may be adopted and thus, in the said case has upheld 0.5% commission on corporate

In this view of the matter, and by following decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Public School Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to impute guarantee commission @ 0.5% on total corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed.