CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

378 ITR 57High Court2015#258 most cited

What is CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. authority for?

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

304

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. · corporate guarantee · transfer pricing · section 92B · section 92CA · arm's length price · associated enterprises · benchmarking · bank guarantee · discount · 378 ITR 57

Also reported as

58 Taxmann.com 254232 Taxmann 307

Sections most often in play

Section 92BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 115JBSection 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 92CASection 92CA(3)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

corporate guaranteesafe harbour rulessection 92b(1)safe harboursection 92bsection 92fcup methodassociated enterprisessection 92c(3)retrospective amendmentbenchmarking analysissection 92ca(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.

Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 157/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Piramal Glass Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As ‘Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.’) Income Tax 7(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No. 669A, 6Th Floor Piramal Tower Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Aaykar Bahwan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road, Churchgate Mumbai 400013 Mumbai 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-0093-R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 156Section 92C

…%. But rejecting the same, DRP confirmed the said benchmarked rate. Before us, Ld. AR raised similar contentions but fairly conceded that in view of amendment in Section 92B and jurisdictional Bombay High Court judgment in CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. 378 ITR 57, the said transaction constitute international transaction. On merits, he asserted that rate of 3% benchmarked by applying mark up on SBI rate is too high and not correct. In number of judgments, the rate ranging from 0.20% to 0.50% has been found to be acceptable. The Ld. DR has justified the said rate. We have heard rival contentions and find st…

Laqshya Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 500/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) M/S Laqshya Media Private Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax 10(2)(1) Laqshya House Room No. 209 बनाम/ Saraswati Baug Aaykar Bahwan Vs. Society Road, Jgeshwari (E) M.K.Road Mumbai 400060 Churchgate Mumbai 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl-5004-C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…ior counsel for assessee [AR], Sh. Rajan Vora was that the said transaction was not an international transaction but fairly conceded that in view of amendment in Section 92B and jurisdictional Bombay High Court judgment in CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. 378 ITR 57, the said transaction constitutes international transaction. On merit, is was stated that the CG has been provided to its AE under overall financing structuring arrangement where over and above the share capital invested, funds were provided and CG was also given. Moreover, the assessee was not in the business of financing / giving guarantees and…

Grindewell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 523/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala &For Respondent: Shri N. Padmanabham
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 32

…stified. In the course of hearing, the learned representative has relied upon various decisions, which are as under :- i) Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v ACIT (34 taxmann.com 19) (Mum Trib) 19 M/s. Grindwell Norton Ltd. ii) CIT v Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. (378 ITR 57) (Bombay HC) iii) Hindalco Industries Ltd. v ACIT (62 taxmann.com 181) (Mum Trib) iv) Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v ACIT (69 taxmann.com 443) (Mum Trib) v) Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. v ACIT (69 taxmann.com 436) (Mum Trib) 21. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue defended that the arm’s length rate determined by the Assessing…

Grabal Alok Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1776/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri M.P.LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Mukundraj Chate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92B

…631/Mum/2015) dated 13th April 2016. 7. Without prejudice to the above, it was argued by ld. AR that guarantee commission rate of 0.5% must be applied in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd., [2015] 378 ITR 57 and the decision of Tribunal in ITA No.542/Mum/2012, order dated 23-11-2012. Following more decisions were also relied upon :- i) Everest Kanto Cylinder Limited Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 550/Mum/2014); ii)Manugraph India Ltd (ITA No 4761/Mum/2013); iii)Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. (7033/M/2012); iv)Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITA No 5031/Mum/2…