WESTERN REFREGERATION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the grounds raised, the assessee has challenged the addition made of ` 28,99,418, on account of transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee.

Brief facts are, the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of refrigeration and freezing equipments. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 7th October 2010, declaring income of ` 4,20,72,347. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has entered into international transaction with its Associated Enterprise (AE), made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price of the international transaction. In the course of proceedings before him, the Transfer Pricing Officer noticing that the assessee has provided corporate guarantee to the AE without charging any fee, called upon the assessee to explain why the arm's length price of the guarantee fee should not be determined. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed adjustment, however, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejecting the submissions of the assessee held that the arm's length price of the corporate guarantee has to be determined. Applying the commercial borrowing rates of SBI @ 0.625%, the Assessing Officer determined the arm’s length price of commission @ ` 28,99,418. The aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

Though, the assessee challenged the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, it was unsuccessful.

We have heard the parties and perused material on record. Though, in ground no.2, the assessee has raised the issue that the provision of corporate guarantee does not come within the definition of international transaction defined under section 92B of the Act, however, at the time of hearing of the appeal before us, the only submission made by the learned Authorised Representative is, arm's length commission for corporate guarantee provided to the AE should be determined by applying the rate of 0.5%. In support of such contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.) and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in ITA no.882/Mum./2017, dated 7th September 2018.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Transfer Pricing Officer. Having considered rival submissions, it is noticed that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (supra), has held that the guarantee commission should be charged @

In view of the above, ground no.2 is dismissed and grounds no.1 and 3 are partly allowed.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.03.2019