← All Phrases

“safe harbour rules”

Transfer PricingSection 92CBSection 92CB105 judgments

The decision most relied on for safe harbour rules is Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (77 Taxmann.com 48), cited in 10 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on safe harbour rules

Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
77 Taxmann.com 48 · 2017 · Reported
10
citing judgments

This case does not lay down a clear proposition of law based on the provided excerpts. The passages focus on listing other cases and describing the business of a company rather than stating a legal holding.

Judgments citing safe harbour rules

Cvent India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in both the A

ITA 187/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: ShriDheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR
Section 92CSection 92D

wherein forex gain/loss arising out of forex fluctuation has been treated as non- operating in nature. The TPO/CIT(A) did not appreciate that safe harbour rules are optional and the assessee did not apply these rules during the relevant year. 29. The ld AR further submitted that the TPO/CIT ... ITES to AE and therefore, we fail to understand how such foreign exchange fluctuation gain should be considered as non-operating. Further the Safe Harbour Rules are not applicable for the impugned AY 2010-11 as held by the hon’ble Delhi Court in the case of PCIT

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2234/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

both AEs and the appellant to provide such LOC/performance/financial guarantee. 1.7 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that LOC and performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.8 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred ... charged by the assessee to its associated enterprises for providing said performance guarantee. 23. Before us, the assessee has also referred the Safe Harbour Rule informed by the CBDT dated 18.09.2013 which clearly distinguished between a corporate guarantee and performance guarantee. It is submitted that said rule does not include

DCIT 3(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Shapoorji Pallonji and Co.Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2232/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

both AEs and the appellant to provide such LOC/performance/financial guarantee. 1.7 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that LOC and performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.8 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred ... charged by the assessee to its associated enterprises for providing said performance guarantee. 23. Before us, the assessee has also referred the Safe Harbour Rule informed by the CBDT dated 18.09.2013 which clearly distinguished between a corporate guarantee and performance guarantee. It is submitted that said rule does not include

Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

both AEs and the appellant to provide such LOC/performance/financial guarantee. 1.7 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that LOC and performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.8 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred ... charged by the assessee to its associated enterprises for providing said performance guarantee. 23. Before us, the assessee has also referred the Safe Harbour Rule informed by the CBDT dated 18.09.2013 which clearly distinguished between a corporate guarantee and performance guarantee. It is submitted that said rule does not include

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2026/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

both AEs and the appellant to provide such LOC/performance/financial guarantee. 1.7 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that LOC and performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.8 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred ... charged by the assessee to its associated enterprises for providing said performance guarantee. 23. Before us, the assessee has also referred the Safe Harbour Rule informed by the CBDT dated 18.09.2013 which clearly distinguished between a corporate guarantee and performance guarantee. It is submitted that said rule does not include

DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

exchange gain of Rs 1.95 crores as operational revenue. The appellant has demonstrated that by following the guidance given in rule 10TA of safe harbour rules, the appellant's PLI is 15.81% in comparison to its comparables' mean margin of 14.81%. Therefore factually also there is no ground for holding

Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

exchange gain of Rs 1.95 crores as operational revenue. The appellant has demonstrated that by following the guidance given in rule 10TA of safe harbour rules, the appellant's PLI is 15.81% in comparison to its comparables' mean margin of 14.81%. Therefore factually also there is no ground for holding

Ims Health Analytics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 300/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani & Sri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

April 2017 with prospective effect. Regarding the applicability of rule 10TA, we note that such rule is applicable if the assessee opts for safe Harbour rules. But in the present case, the assessee has not opted such rule, therefore the impugned transaction of share-based compensation cannot be treated

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in confirming the application of Safe Harbour Rules by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TPO"), for which option is available to the assessee only. 8. FOR THAT, without

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. FOR THAT, without prejudice to the above, the DRP erred in confirming the application of Safe Harbour Rules by the Transfer Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TPO"), for which option is available to the assessee only. 8. FOR THAT, without

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7923/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Sr. DR
Section 92C(2)Section 92D

argued that treating the same as non-operating in nature would amount to double taxation. The ld AR further submitted that the safe harbour rules are optional in nature and the assessee has not opted for the same. Further, without prejudice basis, it is mentioned that CBDT notification

Amazon Development Centre (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp), Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 795/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 263

been held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Sench In DCIT Vs. Minda Acoustic ".,,.a (ITA No. 1759/Del/2015) that the safe harbour rules can be taken as guidance as - "The assessee though has not applied for the Safe Harbor rules, but It always be adopted as guidance for interpretation of such ... hence the expense cannot be included in the operating expense base does not align with the above clarification in the safe harbour rules, absent any other definition in the TP rules. None of the above was examined by the TPO before allowing the assessee's claim. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “34. The decision

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tp), Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 762/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 263

been held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Sench In DCIT Vs. Minda Acoustic ".,,.a (ITA No. 1759/Del/2015) that the safe harbour rules can be taken as guidance as - "The assessee though has not applied for the Safe Harbor rules, but It always be adopted as guidance for interpretation of such ... hence the expense cannot be included in the operating expense base does not align with the above clarification in the safe harbour rules, absent any other definition in the TP rules. None of the above was examined by the TPO before allowing the assessee's claim. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “34. The decision

ACIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2795/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

written back (vi) extraordinary incomes and (vii) Other incomes not relating to normal operations of the assessee Though case is not covered by safe harbour rule it would be better to take the report as definition for operating revenue or non operating revenue from the Safe harbour Rules case interpretation ... safe horbours rule will treated certain items as operating whereas other assessee which is not Yutaka Autoparts India Vs. ITO apply for safe harbour Rule will treat certain items as operating and other assessee which is not apply for safe harbour will treat some items as non operating therefore, such

Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2742/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

written back (vi) extraordinary incomes and (vii) Other incomes not relating to normal operations of the assessee Though case is not covered by safe harbour rule it would be better to take the report as definition for operating revenue or non operating revenue from the Safe harbour Rules case interpretation ... safe horbours rule will treated certain items as operating whereas other assessee which is not Yutaka Autoparts India Vs. ITO apply for safe harbour Rule will treat certain items as operating and other assessee which is not apply for safe harbour will treat some items as non operating therefore, such

Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1607/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

written back (vi) extraordinary incomes and (vii) Other incomes not relating to normal operations of the assessee Though case is not covered by safe harbour rule it would be better to take the report as definition for operating revenue or non operating revenue from the Safe harbour Rules case interpretation ... safe horbours rule will treated certain items as operating whereas other assessee which is not Yutaka Autoparts India Vs. ITO apply for safe harbour Rule will treat certain items as operating and other assessee which is not apply for safe harbour will treat some items as non operating therefore, such

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

terms of the definitions as provided under clause (j) and (k) of Rule 10TA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("IT Rules") Safe Harbour Rule for International Transactions, the term "operating revenue" does not include any income arising on account of foreign currency fluctuations and hence, gain on foreign exchange ... enterprise ("AE") and the Appellant is not exposed to foreign exchange fluctuation risk which is borne by the AE.. 7.2 Invocation of Safe Harbour Rules as envisaged under part DB of the IT Rules In this context, the attention of the Hon'ble Tribunal is invited to the decision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Dell International Services India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

ITA 722/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Mahima Goud, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 154Section 92CSection 92C(4)

extent confirmed by the appellate forums under the Act; (iii) determined by an advance pricing agreement (iv) is made as per the safe harbour rules framed under section 92CB; or (v) is arising as a result of resolution of an assessment by way of the mutual agreement procedure under

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 475/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumarmckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 16 (1), 3Rd Floor, Block Iii, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccm2356G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 21.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

years. Further, it also considers the definition of Eligible International Transaction" as per Rule 10TC, which pertains to the applicability of Safe Harbour Rules only. Further, the order also addressed the adoption of interest rates. 2.9 Additionally, the learned DR mentioned that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ... decision is reproduced below:- 6. This definition of" Eligible International Transaction" in Rule 1 OTC is for the purpose of applicability of Safe Harbour Rules only. Hence the international transaction of interest on outstanding receivables does not figure in any of the clauses (i) to (x) in the aforesaid list

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

LIBOR plus 225 bps, it would be sufficient to take care of the TP adjustment in question. • That even as per the prevailing “Safe Harbour Rules” (Rule 10TD(2A)(5)(v) , interest rates prescribed for granting loan to AE in the foreign currency, in cases where credit rating ... bank guarantee cannot be upheld, at the same time, the assessee’s alternative argument of treating the interest rates prescribed under the head “safe harbour rules” i.e. Rule 10TD(2A)(5) of the Income Tax Rules can be accepted, which is six months LIBOR plus