ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. GREENPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 140/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 December 2025AY 2013-14Bench: or hearing of this appeal.”12 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The corporate guarantee fee was restricted to 0.5% based on a coordinate bench ruling, and excise duty exemption was treated as a capital receipt not includible for MAT computation.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order restricting the corporate guarantee fee to 0.5% and allowing excise duty exemption as a capital receipt. The CIT(A) had relied on a coordinate bench decision for the guarantee fee and High Court decisions for the excise duty exemption.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the arm's length price of corporate guarantee fees and the taxability of excise duty exemption as a capital receipt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92C,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, “Guwahati” BENCH, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Tulsyan, AR
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Hearing: 02.12.2025Pronounced: 15.12.2025

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata-22(hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 31.01.2024 for the AY 2013-14. 2. The ground raised by the Revenue are as under:-

“1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by restricting the guarantee fee rate to 0.5% which is much lower than the CG rate of 1.50%, 1.69% & 1.27% respectively as determined by the TPO, for SCB Loans, UOВ Loans and SBLC.

2.

That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in stating that the CG fee should be benchm

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →