← All Phrases

“corporate guarantee”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B595 judgments

ESCORTS LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7394/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

challenged the addition of\nRs.47,64,00,000/- made by the AO by disallowing the claim of expenditure\nincurred on settlement of a corporate guarantee.\n5.1 The appellant has made fresh claim of expenditure of Rs.47.64 Crore in\nthe revised return in respect of settlement made with M/s L.S. Cables ... arbitration award pronounced against the company and\nsubsequently settled with this party during the AY 2016-17. The matter was\nrelated to the corporate guarantee given by the appellant company in favour\nof its subsidiary company which was invoked by M/s L.S. Cables, Korea for\nrecovery of their dues against

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

Nature of Transaction Adjustment (Rs.) 1. Export to Glenmark Nigeria 1,27,64,913 2. Export to Glenmark Czech 2,02,07,209 3. Corporate Guarantee on behalf of GHSA 28,54,64,332 4. Corporate Guarantee on behalf of GGFSA 9,02,97,175 5. Comfort Guarantee ... Adjustment on account of 2,02,07,209 Export of Pharmaceutical Products to Glenmark Czech C Adjustment on account of 28,54,64,332 corporate guarantee to GHSA D Adjustment on account of 9,02,97,175 corporate guarantee to CGFSA E Adjustment on account

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

Nature of Transaction Adjustment (Rs.) 1. Export to Glenmark Nigeria 1,27,64,913 2. Export to Glenmark Czech 2,02,07,209 3. Corporate Guarantee on behalf of GHSA 28,54,64,332 4. Corporate Guarantee on behalf of GGFSA 9,02,97,175 5. Comfort Guarantee ... Adjustment on account of 2,02,07,209 Export of Pharmaceutical Products to Glenmark Czech C Adjustment on account of 28,54,64,332 corporate guarantee to GHSA D Adjustment on account of 9,02,97,175 corporate guarantee to CGFSA E Adjustment on account

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4580/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Assessment Year 2018-19. Relevant portion is extracted below for ready reference. “The assessee was asked to show cause as to why the corporate guarantee @1.80% should not be used for benchmarking the above said transaction. 5.1.4. Assessee has filed its reply vide letter dated 18.05.2023 and 29.05.2023. The assessee ... rate of 1.55% as the average bank guarantee rate (that is 1.80% less 0.25%) for downward adjustment from the AEs for the corporate guarantee given on assessee's behalf to third party financial institutions. This downward adjustment of 0.25% considered by ld. TPO based on the judicial precedents was negated

DCIT, KOLKATA vs. HIMADRI SPECIALITY CHEMICAL LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 92C

being merely an ancillary consequence. In support of its position, the assessée referred to judicial precedents, which established that for a corporate guarantee to qualify as an international transaction under Section 928 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it must be issued primarily for the benefit of the AE, incur ... n4.8 In the case of Tega Industries Ltd. I.T.A. No. 539/Kol/2022, the hon'ble Kolkata ITAT vide order dated 08-04-2024 held that corporate guarantee fee constitutes an international transaction subject to ALP and 0.5% as the appropriate rate for the same. The relevant extract is as follows

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

median of bank guarantee rate charged by bank at the rate of 1.8% less 0.5% or downward adjustment) from the AE for the corporate guarantee given on behalf of assessee to third party financial institutions. According to him, since the assessee charged guarantee fee at the average rate

ACITLTU-2, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 945/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

dismissed. 15. The Revenue filed an additional ground in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of Corporate Guarantee Commission provided by the assessee by holding that the same is not covered under clause (c) in Explanation 1 to section ... proposed adjustments for arms length value of ₹.1,25,70,350/- towards computed service charges receivable by the assessee for the Corporate Guarantee provided to its associated enterprises viz., AALM (Avia Ashok Leyland Motors, the Czech Republic) and ALUAE (Ashok Leyland UAE) as well as ₹.1,40,847.88 in respect

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 895/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

dismissed. 15. The Revenue filed an additional ground in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of Corporate Guarantee Commission provided by the assessee by holding that the same is not covered under clause (c) in Explanation 1 to section ... proposed adjustments for arms length value of ₹.1,25,70,350/- towards computed service charges receivable by the assessee for the Corporate Guarantee provided to its associated enterprises viz., AALM (Avia Ashok Leyland Motors, the Czech Republic) and ALUAE (Ashok Leyland UAE) as well as ₹.1,40,847.88 in respect

OCEAN DIVING CENTRE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the appellant is partly allowed for

ITA 6742/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Itat On The Following 4 Issues :

Section 143(3)

appellant company filed an appeal before ITAT on the following 4 issues : a) DRP erred in upholding the adjustment of 0.5% on account of Corporate Guarantee b) DRP erred in upholding the adjustment of Rs.1.29 crores on account of interest on loan. c) DRP erred in upholding payment of disputed ... customs duty d) DRP erred in upholding disallowance of Sundry Balances written off. 3. Issue of adjustment relating to Corporate Guarantee : During the year under consideration, the appellant company has provided Corporate Guarantee to ICICI Bank for loan granted to its Associated Enterprise (AE) of Rs.29.26 cr. The appellant company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI, DELHI vs. HAVELLS INDIA LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4740/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Havells India Ltd. 904, 9Th Floor, Kg Marg, Surya Central Circle-17 Delhi Kiran Building, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach0351E

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801CSection 92BSection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the principle that the factors/ parameters for issuing the Corporate Guarantee are different in every case and varies depending upon the tenure, T & C, risk-borne capacity, currency fluctuations, economic / business conditions etc. 2. Whether ... restricting the rate of adjustment from 4.71% as determined by TPO in order u/s 92CA(3) to 0.5% in respect of corporate guarantee provided by the assessee company to its associated enterprises. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 392/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 153(4)Section 153CSection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

AO/TPO/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP") has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs 8,54,24,075/ on account of Corporate Guarantee Charges 3. That the learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs 2,65,51,520/- on account ... assessee. The same is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground No.2 relates to transfer pricing adjustment made to the international transaction of corporate guarantee commission earned by the assessee amounting to Rs.8,54,24,075/-. 8. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

quote by the EKC\nIndia, which was used for benchmarking corporate\nguarantee and therefore, it was not appropriate to hold\nthat bank guarantee and corporate guarantee are\ndifferent.\n(iv)\nThe decision in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders\nLtd., cannot be standard for every assessee as\nbenchmarking for different ... facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.\nCIT(A) was correct in restricting commission of Rs.\n5,67,32,905/- for corporate guarantee and performance\nguarantee @0.5% while relying on Everest Kanto decision\nwithout discussing & appreciating facts brought on record by\nΤΡΟ.\n9. The appellant prays that the order

DCIT(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 1211/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

quote by the EKC\nIndia, which was used for benchmarking corporate\nguarantee and therefore, it was not appropriate to hold\nthat bank guarantee and corporate guarantee are\ndifferent.\n(iv)\nThe decision in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinders\nLtd., cannot be standard for every assessee as\nbenchmarking for different ... facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.\nCIT(A) was correct in restricting commission of Rs.\n5,67,32,905/- for corporate guarantee and performance\nguarantee @0.5% while relying on Everest Kanto decision\nwithout discussing & appreciating facts brought on record by\nΤΡΟ.\nThe appellant prays that the order

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -3(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect of non- recovery of commission from AEs on issue of performance guarantee and financial guarantee ... starting point for benchmarking in the case of EKC was obtaining of bank guarantee quote by the EKC India, which was used for benchmarking corporate guarantee and therefore, it was not appropriate to hold that bank guarantee and corporate guarantee are different. (iv) The decision in the case of Everest

SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

Income-tax (appeals)-58 erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.7. The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect of non- recovery of commission from AEs on issue of performance guarantee and financial guarantee ... starting point for benchmarking in the case of EKC was obtaining of bank guarantee quote by the EKC India, which was used for benchmarking corporate guarantee and therefore, it was not appropriate to hold that bank guarantee and corporate guarantee are different. (iv) The decision in the case of Everest

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO ... National Engineering\nIndustries Ltd (supra) and the appellant itself in the subsequent years has\nheld 1% to be appropriate arm's length price of corporate guarantees issued\nby assessees to its foreign subsidiaries. Following the decision of Hon'ble\nITAT, Kolkata; the Ld. AO is accordingly directed to restrict

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO ... National Engineering\nIndustries Ltd (supra) and the appellant itself in the subsequent years has\nheld 1% to be appropriate arm's length price of corporate guarantees issued\nby assessees to its foreign subsidiaries. Following the decision of Hon'ble\nITAT, Kolkata; the Ld. AO is accordingly directed to restrict

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO ... National Engineering\nIndustries Ltd (supra) and the appellant itself in the subsequent years has\nheld 1% to be appropriate arm's length price of corporate guarantees issued\nby assessees to its foreign subsidiaries. Following the decision of Hon'ble\nITAT, Kolkata; the Ld. AO is accordingly directed to restrict

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

interest on loans to AEs and a sum of ₹2,39,55,670/-\nas fee against corporate guarantee.\n12.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has observed in para 31 of the appeal order based\nupon his finding in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 that the approach of the\nTPO ... National Engineering\nIndustries Ltd (supra) and the appellant itself in the subsequent years has\nheld 1% to be appropriate arm's length price of corporate guarantees issued\nby assessees to its foreign subsidiaries. Following the decision of Hon'ble\nITAT, Kolkata; the Ld. AO is accordingly directed to restrict

GHCL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1643/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 250

history of the case was that the assessee's claim of brought forward business loss was on account of invocation of corporate guarantees of subsidiary companies, which were given for the purpose of Global business of the assessee company and was commercially expedient, during

Showing 1–20 of 595 · Page 1 of 30

...