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.

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…ellant further relies upon the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [398 ITR 439], which re- ferred to and applied the decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. [378 ITR 57]. Further, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the deci- sion in the case of Glenmark (supra) was considered and dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [265 Taxman 297]. • The Appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal apply the said ruling for the Impugned AY, thereby restricting the adjustment towards the corporate guar- antee fee to…

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…ellant further relies upon the decision of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [398 ITR 439], which re- ferred to and applied the decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. [378 ITR 57]. Further, the SLP filed by the Revenue against the deci- sion in the case of Glenmark (supra) was considered and dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [265 Taxman 297]. • The Appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal apply the said ruling for the Impugned AY, thereby restricting the adjustment towards the corporate guar- antee fee to…

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 62Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 473/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata......................................................Appellant Vs. M/s. Graphite India Ltd…………………….................................Respondent [PAN: AAACC 0457 C] C.O. No.: 65/KOL/2018 Arising Out of I.T.A. No.: 473/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Graphite India Ltd......…

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

…ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Redington (India) Ltd., reported in [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Mad.)(HC) and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT (LTU) reported in [2014] 52 taxmann.com 395 (Bom.) & 378 ITR 57 and directed that AO to restrict the disallowance at 0.5% of the guarantee value. M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd. :: 6 :: 3.2 After hearing both the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the TPO’s order that this is an international transaction, but upward adjustment is now covered in favour of the assessee…

Addi CIT Spl. Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, LIBOR + 300 points be charged and corporate guaranteed commission be charged @ 0

ITA 7700/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Prakshit Singh, Sr. DR

…he reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A). (para 7.5 to 7.8) which relied on the order of the Tribunal in case of DCIT Vs. Spentex Industries Ltd. (94 taxmann 419) and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Cantor Cylinder Ltd. (378 ITR 57). For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below: “7.5 Grounds No. 7, 8 & 9 pertain to the contention of the appellant that the AO/TPO had erred in charging corporate-guarantee at the rate of 0.12% from its AE and making a transfer pricing adjustment using 1.3% as per SBI rate on guarantee. The appellant…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4078/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

…as a corporate guarantee for which no fees was paid by the assessee and going by the ratio of the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. Vs. DCIT [34 Taxmann.com 19] as affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 08/05/2015 [58 Taxmann.com 254], we estimate the TP adjustments against both these transactions @0.20%. The Ld. TPO / Ld. AO is directed to recompute the same in terms of our above order. The grounds stand partly allowed.” 4. Respectfully following the findings of the Coordinate Bench (supra), we hold accordingly. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 5. The next gri…

Kec International Limited, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4021/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 90

…as a corporate guarantee for which no fees was paid by the assessee and going by the ratio of the decision of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. Vs. DCIT [34 Taxmann.com 19] as affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 08/05/2015 [58 Taxmann.com 254], we estimate the TP adjustments against both these transactions @0.20%. The Ld. TPO / Ld. AO is directed to recompute the same in terms of our above order. The grounds stand partly allowed.” 4. Respectfully following the findings of the Coordinate Bench (supra), we hold accordingly. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 5. The next gri…

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80JSection 91

…ue has come up before various judicial forums and corporate guarantee fee range of 0.2% to 0.5% has been found to be justified. We find support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders reported in (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom), and are inclined to give part relief to the assessee directing the TPO to compute corporate guarantee fee @ 0.5% and delete excess amount added in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 11. Ground Nos. 11 & 12 are relating to levy of interest u/s 234B/C of the Act which are conse…

Il&Fs Maritime Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3558/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal Vora &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 14A

…ing the F.Y. 2012- 13. The assessee also requested to withdraw the disallowance already made by the assessee in the return of income. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd. 378 ITR 57 stating that in that case higher disallowance u/s 14A was agreed before the AO and the same was reduced at the appellate stage. The AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and he has computed additional disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D of the I.T. Rule to the amount of Rs.81,99,526/- in addition to the suo moto disallowance of Rs.…

Associated Capsules P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for

ITA 4620/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 92Section 92BSection 92C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 4620/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle-42 (Formerly known as: Associated Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Capsules P. Ltd.) Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. 1001 Dalamal House, 10th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACA 4769 K (Assessee) (Revenue) : ITA Nos. 4713/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. CIT, Central Circle-7(3) ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 655, 6th Floor, Aayakar (Formerly known as: Associated Bha…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…0IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lupin Limited The DCIT Circle-3(4), 7th Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, 29th Floor, Center-1, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. World Trade Centre, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055. Cuffe Parade, PAN : AAACL1069K Mumbai-400005 Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1242/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) The ACIT Circle-3(4), Lupin Limited 29th Floor, Center-1, 7th Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, World Trade Centre, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Santa…

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…0IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 77/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lupin Limited The DCIT Circle-3(4), 7th Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, 29th Floor, Center-1, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. World Trade Centre, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400055. Cuffe Parade, PAN : AAACL1069K Mumbai-400005 Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1242/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) The ACIT Circle-3(4), Lupin Limited 29th Floor, Center-1, 7th Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, World Trade Centre, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Santa…

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA(TP).No.2365 and 2366/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-14 and 2014-15 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. D.C.I.T, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House, Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Dinesh Hall, Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380009. PAN: AAACT5456A And Asstt. Year 2015-16 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1)(2) Torrent House, Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Dinesh Hall, Off.Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. PAN: AAACT5456A आयकर अपील सं./ITA.…

Mr. Aashish Luthra, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas, DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…at the CIT(A) after acknowledging these facts is not correct in making 1/3rd of the amount as addition in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. ([2015] 378 ITR 57/58 (Bom)) to submit that the without prejudice plead raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) stating that the additions could be made to the extent of 1/3rd does not prevent the assessee to contend the said addition before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the parties and perused the mate…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 753/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5Th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. Pan: Aaact-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi with Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar&
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं सु"ी प"ावती.एस, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.753/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) The Tata Power Co. Ltd. Corporate Center, Block ‘B’, 5th Floor, 34, Sant Thukaram Road, Carnak Bunder, Mumbai 400 009. PAN: AAACT-0054-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Nitesh…

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Grasim Industries Limited Addl. CIT- LTU, Mumbai (as a Successor to Aditya Birla (Now jurisdiction is with Dy. Nuvo Ltd.) Aditya Birla Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax, A Wing, 2nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. CC-1(4), Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Old CGO Building, Worli, Mumbai-400030. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 . PAN : AAACI1747H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1248/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Grasim Industri…

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Grasim Industries Limited Addl. CIT- LTU, Mumbai (as a Successor to Aditya Birla (Now jurisdiction is with Dy. Nuvo Ltd.) Aditya Birla Centre, Commissioner of Income Tax, A Wing, 2nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. CC-1(4), Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Old CGO Building, Worli, Mumbai-400030. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 . PAN : AAACI1747H Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1248/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Grasim Industri…

Dy.CIT -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1883/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

…ee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by KEC US LLC & KEC Transmission LLC from banks should be estimated at 0.20% placing reliance upon the decision in assessee's own case by Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2012-13, which relied on Everest Kanto case | 58 Taxmann.com 254), without realizing the fact that the transfer pricing study is highly facts-based and it differs from case to case and that all the factors in Rule 10B have to be considered for every case and every year independently and that a rate decided in a different case for different set of facts and for different year cannot be adopted as such to…

Kec International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1852/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck5599H Dy. Commissioner Of Income Kec International Ltd. Tax 463, Rpg House, Circle 5(2)(1) Dr. Annie Besant Road, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147(3)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92F

…ee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by KEC US LLC & KEC Transmission LLC from banks should be estimated at 0.20% placing reliance upon the decision in assessee's own case by Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2012-13, which relied on Everest Kanto case | 58 Taxmann.com 254), without realizing the fact that the transfer pricing study is highly facts-based and it differs from case to case and that all the factors in Rule 10B have to be considered for every case and every year independently and that a rate decided in a different case for different set of facts and for different year cannot be adopted as such to…

DCIT- CC - 7(3), Mumbai vs. Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 3283/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

…h by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 2750/Mum/2014 where the Tribunal has restricted the corporate guarantee commission @ 0.5% by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Everest Kento Cylinders [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom). It is also pertinent to point out that the issue of the impugned transaction whether an international transaction falling within the meaning of section 92B of the Act has also been dealt with by the Tribunal holding the said transaction to be an international transaction. The ld. DR relied on the decision in the case of Glenmark Pharmaceut…