Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistamt Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Aurangabad
In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn
ITA 758/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019
For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Shivastava
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B
…tainable for the reason that the TPO adopted CO No.43/PUN/2019 Arm's length price of guarantee commission by adopting average on the bankers rate notified by SBI. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57) held that a comparison cannot be made between a bank guarantee and corporate guarantee as is not between the like transaction. Hence, no transfer pricing adjustment could be made in respect of guarantee commission on the basis of bank rate and this ratio was followed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Glenmark Pharmac…