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 367,154 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.

DCIT C.C. 3(2) `, Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2216/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

…ssessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everst Canto Cylinders Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 254; 378 ITR 57)(Bom). Following the said order, the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the Commission on Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee @ 0.50% of actual value of loan taken by the Associated Enterprises. Both the parties are aggrieved. While the assessee seeks further reduction, the revenue contends that the guarantee commission should be retained…

DCIT C.C. 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2215/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

…ssessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everst Canto Cylinders Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 254; 378 ITR 57)(Bom). Following the said order, the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the Commission on Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee @ 0.50% of actual value of loan taken by the Associated Enterprises. Both the parties are aggrieved. While the assessee seeks further reduction, the revenue contends that the guarantee commission should be retained…

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent . Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1777/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

…ssessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everst Canto Cylinders Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 254; 378 ITR 57)(Bom). Following the said order, the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the Commission on Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee @ 0.50% of actual value of loan taken by the Associated Enterprises. Both the parties are aggrieved. While the assessee seeks further reduction, the revenue contends that the guarantee commission should be retained…

M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Tax Cent. Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

…ssessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everst Canto Cylinders Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 254; 378 ITR 57)(Bom). Following the said order, the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the Commission on Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee @ 0.50% of actual value of loan taken by the Associated Enterprises. Both the parties are aggrieved. While the assessee seeks further reduction, the revenue contends that the guarantee commission should be retained…

Viraj Profiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

…case and deciding the issue on the merits of the case? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is correct in relying on decisions in the cases of CIT v. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254/232 Taxman 307/378 ITR 57 Bom) in arriving the 0.50% rate of corporate guarantee fees for A.Y 2013-14, which is in violation of provisions of Rule 10B(4) of IT Rules as the determinants of corporate guarantee fee like the credit rating. interest rate and FAR analysis etc., differ case to case and year on year and so a rate arrived at in a particular case and for particular…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Room No. 902, 9th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Central Circle-1(4) v. M/s. UltraTech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Annexe Maharishi…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2116/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kumar
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

…s cannot be applied in the case of corporate guarantee since the factors applicable for issuance of both are different. The learned AR by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd, [2015] 378 ITR 57 (Bom.) submitted that since the guarantee fee as per „Interest Saving Approach‟ is in the range of 0.25% to 1.25%, the same is to be accepted for benchmarking this transaction. The learned AR agreed that the computation of the guarantee fee as provided in the TP Study Report was offered to be added by the assessee, however, no guarantee fee M/s. J…

M/S. Viraj Profiles Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153A

…e assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everst Canto Cylinders Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 254; 378 ITR 57)(Bom). Following the said order, the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the Commission on Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee @ 0.50% of actual value of loan taken by the Associated Enterprises. Both the parties are aggrieved. While the assessee seeks further reduction, the revenue contends that the guarantee commission should be retained…

DCIT C.C. 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2213/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 37

…e assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 has been adjudicated by the Tribunal and the Guarantee Commission was restricted to 0.50% following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everst Canto Cylinders Ltd (2015)(58 taxmann.com 254; 378 ITR 57)(Bom). Following the said order, the Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to restrict the Commission on Corporate Guarantee given by the assessee @ 0.50% of actual value of loan taken by the Associated Enterprises. Both the parties are aggrieved. While the assessee seeks further reduction, the revenue contends that the guarantee commission should be retained…

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…y Para no.20, rejecting benchmarking of the ld TPO without giving any reason following the ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom.), held that Arm's Length rate for guarantee commission should be 0.5% accordingly, confirmed the Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as p…

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

…y Para no.20, rejecting benchmarking of the ld TPO without giving any reason following the ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom.), held that Arm's Length rate for guarantee commission should be 0.5% accordingly, confirmed the Transfer Pricing adjustment of ₹99,14,138/- against adjustment of ld TPO of Rs 1,98,25,276/-. 011. Based on this, the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th July, 2022 determining the total income of the assessee as p…

Hindustan Construction Company Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi DCIT14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 581/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 581/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. National Faceless Hindustan Construction Company Limited Assessment Centre Hincon House, LBS Marg Delhi Vikhroli West, Mumbai-400 083. & DCIT-14(1)(1) PAN : AAACH0968B Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri H.P. Mahajani Department by Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of Hearing 22.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 10.03.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the assessment order dated 28th of March 2…

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 225/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. Suvibha Nolkha, CAFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

…he case of CIT vs. Redington India Ltd [2021] 430 ITR 298, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that corporate guarantee given to the AE is covered by the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2012. In the case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto 9 Ltd reported in 378 ITR 57 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the corporate guarantee commission is an international transaction and should be charged @ 50% on the corporate guarantee amount given to the AEs. In the case of M/s. Devi Sea Foods Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 75/Viz/2022 (AY; 2017-18), dated 09/09/2022 this Bench of the Tribunal…

DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros Coal Sales Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 321/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [PAN;AABCK1281H] Appearances by: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Dat…

DCIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata vs. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros Coal Sales Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed and appeal for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 320/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan;Aabck1281H] Appearances By: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2023 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 320 & 321/KOL/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,........Appellant Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Coal Sales Limited,........................Respondent 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 [PAN;AABCK1281H] Appearances by: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Shri N.S. Saini, A.R., appeared on behalf of the assessee Dat…

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 473/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. SuvibhaNolkha, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

…he case of CIT vs. Redington India Ltd [2021] 430 ITR 298, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that corporate guarantee given to the AE is covered by the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2012. In the 8 case of CIT vs. Everest Kanto Ltd reported in 378 ITR 57 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the corporate guarantee commission is an international transaction and should be charged @ 50% on the corporate guarantee amount given to the AEs. In the case of M/s. Devi Sea Foods Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam in ITA No. 75/Viz/2022 (AY; 2017- 18), dated 09/09/2022 this Bench of the Tribu…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wockhardt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2738/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 2633@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacw2472M Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020 Vk-Vk-La- 2738@Eaqcbz@2015 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 10 (1), Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S Wockhardt Ltd. Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacw2472M

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi &Ms Jinal jain dj foHkkx }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CIT DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

…he CIT(A) deleted the adjustment made by the TPO and restricted the guarantee commission to 0.75%. The learned DR vehemently defended the findings of the TPO and the AO. The learned DR submits that the law laid down in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. 378 ITR 57 (Bombay) of charging guarantee commission at 0.5% cannot be a standard mark. The contemporary data should be adopted for benchmarking the transactions. Per contra, the learned AR vehemently supported the findings of the CIT(A). 13.1 Both sides heard. We find that the assessee has charged guarantee commission from its overseas AE at the rate of 0.…

Dy.Comm of Income Tax-8(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Voltas Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1957/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vs. M/S. Voltas Limited Dcit-8(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Voltas House Room No. 615 A-Block, Dr. Baba Saheb New Marine Lines Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 033. Pan : Aaacv2809D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘J’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vs. M/s. Voltas Limited DCIT-8(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan 4th Floor, Voltas House Room No. 615 A-Block, Dr. Baba Saheb New Marine Lines Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 033. PAN : AAACV2809D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by Shri Samuel Pitta Date of Hearing 25.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 9.6…

Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mizuho Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result the grounds no

ITA 2872/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Mehul Talera
Section 163Section 40

…s used and risks undertaken by the assessee bank. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) was night in the allowing relief to the assessee based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Everest Kento Cylinder Limited (378 ITR 57 (Bom), which clearly stated that no comparison (for transfer pricing purposes) can be made between guarantees issued by commercial banks (like the assessee) with corporate guarantee issued by a holding company for benefit of its AE (subsidiary company) and the commission to be charged in the case of bank guarantees necessarily has to be higher tha…