Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT

34 Taxmann.com 19Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#1763 most cited

What is Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantees provided by an Indian entity to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) where no fees are charged can be estimated at approximately 0.20%. The arm's length principle applies to such intra-group corporate guarantee transactions.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT · section 92B · section 92CA(3) · corporate guarantee · transfer pricing adjustment · guarantee fee · arm's length price · related party transaction · Associated Enterprise · nil guarantee fee

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 14ASection 92BSection 92CA(3)Section 10(35)Section 10B

Issues it is cited on

section 92f(ii)section 92fcorporate guaranteesection 92b(1)section 92(1)section 92c(3)r&d expendituresection 92bstrategic investmentcup methodsection 144c(3)weighted deduction

Judgments citing Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT

Apar Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1557/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…tentions and perused relevant material on record. In our opinion corporate guarantee provided by the assessee brought certain compensated by its AE. Our view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered 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] wherein the rate of commission has been adopted @0.5%. Respectfully, following the same, we estimate the impugned additions @0.5% per annum. The Ld. AO is directed to quantity the addition and re-compute the income of the assessee in terms of our above order.” 6.…

Apar Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 956/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.956/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Apar Industries Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 6(1) Apar House, Corporate Park [Erstwhile Acit Central Circle 34] बनाम/ Building No.5 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road Sion Trombay Road Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Chembur Mumbai-400 071 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg-1840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By : V.Jenardhanan, Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Vijay Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.Jenardhanan, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…vided by the assessee brought certain benefits to its AE by way of credit facility and therefore, the same was required to be compensated by its AE. Our view is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal rendered 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] wherein the rate of commission has been adopted @0.5%. Respectfully, following the same, we estimate the impugned additions @0.5% per annum. The Ld. AO is directed to quantity the addition and re-compute the income of the assessee in terms of our above order. 5. Re…

Take Solutions Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 175/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.M. Doss, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92B

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण ,’डी’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं"ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 175/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 TAKE Solutions Limited, Assistant Commissioner of Income No. 27, Tank Band Road, Vs. Tax, Nungambakkam, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AABCT 3684M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri Sivaraman, Advocate *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Responden…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : (A.Y : 2009-10) M/s. Grindwell Norton Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT-1(1), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Mumbai (Respondent) Army & Navy Building, 3rd floor, 148, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (Appellant) PAN : AAACG8752B Assessee by : Shri M.M. Golvala & Shri Akram Khan Revenue by : Shri N. Padmanabham Date of Hearing : 23/08/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30/09/2016 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-15, Mumbai dated…