← All Phrases

“corporate guarantee”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B595 judgments

The decision most relied on for corporate guarantee is HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (383 ITR 529), cited in 408 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on corporate guarantee

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
379 ITR 347 · 2015 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman regarding the necessity or reasonableness of an expenditure. If an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it is deductible, and the Revenue cannot question its commercial expediency.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

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.

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
350 ITR 651 · 2013 · High Court
83
citing judgments

For reopening an assessment, the Assessing Officer needs a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, supported by tangible material that is not illusory or conjectural; conclusive proof of escaped income is not required at this stage. Even if the assessee made full disclosure, a complete failure by the Assessing Officer to apply mind during the original assessment can constitute tangible material for reopening.

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT
34 Taxmann.com 19 · 2013 · ITAT
64
citing judgments

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.

Micro Ink Ltd. v. ACIT
157 ITD 132 · 2016 · ITAT
61
citing judgments

Issuance of corporate guarantees does not constitute an international transaction under section 92B, particularly for guarantees provided before the 2012 amendment. Such guarantees are considered shareholder activities or quasi-capital and do not impact enterprise profits, income, losses, or assets.

Micro Inc Ltd. v. ACIT
63 Taxmann.com 353 · 2015 · ITAT
45
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees cannot be subject to adjustment under the corporate guarantee, as it does not constitute an international transaction. Therefore, any addition made on this score is directed to be deleted.

Judgments citing corporate guarantee

Dae Won Kang Up Co Ltd, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT International Taxation - 1(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1446/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1446/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dae Won Kang Up Co Limited Dcit C/O. Daewon India Autoparts Private Ltd. International Taxation-1(1) बनाम/ Survey No.477 & 489, No.99, Chennai. Vs. Papparambakkam Village, Tiruvalluvar Tk.- 602 025. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcd-7280-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) & Dr. Divya Abhishek (Ca) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024

For Appellant: Dr. M.S. Vasan (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee received ‘royalty income’ and ‘fees for technical services’ which was offered to tax. However, the assessee received corporate guarantee fees for Rs.127.61 Lacs during the year which was claimed to be exempt. The fees were received from Deawon India Auto Parts ... Delhi that the bank guarantee fees would not fall within the expression interest and in the absence of any specific provision dealing on corporate guarantee fee, the same shall be taxable as per the provision of domestic law. In the present case, Article-22 speaks about other income. Thus, this

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

outside India. The Ld. TPO in his report made U/s. 92CA(3) of the Act observed that during the year, the assessee has provided Corporate Guarantee on behalf of its subsidiaries. The Ld. TPO also observed that the assessee has reported the same in Form 3CEB as “shareholder activity ... using other method. The assessee further submitted that 3F India has provided shareholder corporate guarantee on behalf of its overseas subsidiaries in the capacity of a holding company. The guarantee provided by the company is due to the AEs being subsidiaries to 3F India, which is provided for the benefit

Daechang Seat Co Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1301/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Daechang Seat Co Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 491, Mannur Village, Valarpuram V. Income Tax, Post, Sriperumbudur Tk, International Taxation 1(1), Kancheepuram District – 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcd-4448-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 250

that of the Contracting State". i.e., Article 23(3) has applicability only when income accrues / arises in India. It was held that the corporate guarantee commission received by the taxpayer does not arise/deem to arise in India as the French Company has given guarantee to a French bank in France ... Officer noticed that assessee had received guarantee commission of Rs.33,40,347/- from the two associate Indian concerns in return for assessee having extended corporate guarantee to BNP Paribas, France for the credit facilities extended by BNP Paribas, France to the associate concerns in India. Before the Assessing Officer

The ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are decided as under:-

ITA 326/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp) No.7/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.8/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp) No.9/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.326/Chny/2021, Assessment Year-2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. V.A Tech Wabag Limited, Corporate Circle-3(2) No.17, Wabag House, Chennai 200 Feet Radial Road, Sunnambukolathur, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aabcv0225G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Kutty, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Amitabh Shukla, A.M : Delay S. Appel- Appeal Nos. Ays Cit(A) Order Details Respondent In Filing No. Lant Appeal A B C D E F G Acit, Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / M/S. V.A Tech It(Tp)-7 / Cc- 2020-21 / 1029389607 (1) Wabag 1 2013-14 4 Days Chny/2021 3(2), Dt.31.12.2020 Limited, Chennai Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-8 / 2 2014-15 2020-21 / 1029389231 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-9 / 3 2015-16 2020-21 / 1029389414 (1) 4 Days Chny/2021 Dt.31.12.2020 Din No.Itba / Apl / M / 250 / It(Tp)-326 3 4 2016-17 2020-21 / 1031510911 (1) /Chny/2021 Months Dt.16.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kutty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)

Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. 52 taxmann.com 395 (Bom.), wherein it is held that the corporate guarantee upward adjustment in ALP can be done by taking 0.5%, but it is held to be international transaction. The Ld. counsel for the assessee only requested that ... No.7, 8, 9 & 326/Chny/2021 :- 16 -: 11. Coming to ITA No.807/CHNY/2016 for the assessment year 2011- 12 of assessee's appeal, the issue is regarding corporate guarantee charged by AO and affirmed by DRP at the rate of 1.5%. Since we have adjudicated this issue while dealing with Revenue's Appeal

M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1701/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

computation offered by the Appellant. 4. 4.1 On fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that corporate guarantee given by the appellant in respect of the loan given by the lenders to its Associate Enterprise ("AE") is an 'international transaction' and directing ... restrict the disallowance to 1% of the guarantee amount. 4.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1012/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

computation offered by the Appellant. 4. 4.1 On fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that corporate guarantee given by the appellant in respect of the loan given by the lenders to its Associate Enterprise ("AE") is an 'international transaction' and directing ... restrict the disallowance to 1% of the guarantee amount. 4.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1011/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

computation offered by the Appellant. 4. 4.1 On fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that corporate guarantee given by the appellant in respect of the loan given by the lenders to its Associate Enterprise ("AE") is an 'international transaction' and directing ... restrict the disallowance to 1% of the guarantee amount. 4.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1010/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

computation offered by the Appellant. 4. 4.1 On fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that corporate guarantee given by the appellant in respect of the loan given by the lenders to its Associate Enterprise ("AE") is an 'international transaction' and directing ... restrict the disallowance to 1% of the guarantee amount. 4.2 He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that mere issuance of corporate guarantee is not an 'international transaction'. 4.3 The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of corporate guarantee