DCIT, CIR-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. MANAKSIA LIMITED, KOLKATA
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed
ITA 980/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(2), Kolkata....…..……………...…….………...Appellant M/S. Manaksia Limited….…………........................…………………………………...…….………........Respondent Bikaneer Building 8/1, Lalbazar Street Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aaach 6886 J] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28/02/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12, On The Following Grounds:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Upward Adjustment Of Rs.6,97,64,000/- Towards Arm’S Length Interest On Loan Given To Associated Enterprise. 2. Whether On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting Fee Of Rs.2,93,66,000/- Towards Providing Corporate Guarantee On Loans Availed By Foreign Associated Enterprise. 3. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D. 4. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting A Sum Of Rs.9,69,178/- Towards Accrued Interest On Loan. 5. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete, Amend Or Modify Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Appellate Proceedings.”
Section 14ASection 250Section 92B
…rrency then interest rate thereon should be benchmarked against international rates being LIBOR and not against the domestic lending rate. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. vs. ACIT (67 SOT 108). 4.2. The ld. CIT(A) while determining the ALP of interest on loan given to AE, held that (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) CUP is the Most Appropriate Method (MAM). He disagreed with the order of the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer that US LIBOR cannot be considered as a benchmark against US Dollar denominated loan. At para 4 of his order, he held as…
