PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.

430 ITR 298High Court2021#775 most cited

What is PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd. authority for?

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

132

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd. · corporate guarantee · international transaction · Section 92B · guarantee commission · arm's length price · benchmarking corporate guarantee · associated enterprises · retrospective amendment Finance Act 2012 · 430 ITR 298

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.

Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Jalgaon

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 227/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 92D

…gument in principle in light of Explanation 2 to section 92B, inserted in the Act vide in Finance Act 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2002,involving such a corporate guarantee which has been held to be carrying retrospective effect only in PCIT Vs. Redington (I) Ltd. [2020] 430 ITR 298 (Madras). The assessee’s instant arguments is rejected therefore. 7. Learned senior counsel at this stage sought to distinguish the above case law that we must look into the purpose of assessee’s corporate guarantees. We are afraid that such a purpose test would frustrate stricter interpretation principle as per Commissioner Vs. Dilipkumar & Com…

Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.156/Viz/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M/S Devi Sea Foods Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 50-1-51/1, A.S.R.Nagar Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(I) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aabcd0248B] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…the corporate guarantee commission on the gross guarantee given to AE. The Ld. AR pleaded that it is not an international transaction as the assessee has not charged the AE. However, the Ld. AR submitted that in the case of CIT vs. Redington India Ltd [2021] 430 ITR 298, Hon’ble 12 ITA No.156/Viz/2022, A.Y.2018-19 Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam Madras High Court held that corporate guarantee given to the AE is covered by the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2012. The ld. AR relied on the following case laws: (i) DCIT vs. EIH Ltd – [2018] 89 taxmann.com 417 (Kolkata Trib). (ii) GVK Power…

Mega Soft Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 733/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.733/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Mega Soft Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner – No.85, Kutchery Road, Of Income Tax, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabcm 8933 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.M.Muraleedhara Reddy,Ca & Mr.Nagaprasad, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Dr.S.Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 144(5)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

…ntity. Further, the guarantee commission rate is depending upon the facts of each case and the risk involved in the transactions between the assessee and its AE. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd., reported in [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Mad) had considered the issue of corporate guarantee given by an entity to AEs and after considering relevant facts held that rate adopted by the TPO on the basis of internal comparable uncontrolled price charged by the bank @ 0.85% is reasonable for benchmarking corporate guarantee. The M/s.Mega Soft Ltd. :: 10 :: Hon’ble Bombay High Court i…

Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 154Section 50Section 92BSection 92C

…e corporate guarantee commission on the gross guarantee given to AE. The Ld. AR pleaded that it is not an international transaction as the assessee has not charged the AE. However, the Ld. AR submitted that in the 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. The ld. AR relied on the following case laws: (i) DCIT vs. EIH Ltd – [2018] 89 taxmann.com 417 (Kolkata Trib). (ii) GVK Power & Infrastructure Ltd vs. ACIT – [2018] 94 taxmann.com 415 (Visakhapatnam…