← 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

Siddhayu Aaurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// the ACIT Circle 34(3) (2), Delhi

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

section 37(1) or allowable business loss under section 28 of the Act; Transfer pricing adjustment of INR 6, 72,600/- on account of corporate guarantee charges 5.Erred in making transfer pricing adjustment @ 0.5% on account of alleged corporate guarantee provided without appreciating that there was no corporate guarantee which ... provided by Appellant to its AE; 6. without prejudice to above, erred in making transfer pricing adjustment on account of alleged corporate guarantee, without giving credit of charges recovered from its AE, wherein such credit was given in original TP order but not given in final order post

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

AO/TPO grossly erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 1,44,77,042/- to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee and in doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in: 2.1 disregarding the fact that the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant ... does not fall within the definition of "International trans- action" under section 928 of the Act. 2.2 disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

AO/TPO grossly erred in making an adjustment of Rs. 1,44,77,042/- to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate guarantee fee and in doing so, the Ld. AO/TPO grossly erred in: 2.1 disregarding the fact that the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant ... does not fall within the definition of "International trans- action" under section 928 of the Act. 2.2 disregarding the fact that the provision of corporate guarantee to the AEs was for the purpose of furtherance of business by the Appellant, and consequently the guarantee was in the nature of shareholder

DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, considering the discussions made above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 62Section 801ASection 80I

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in not appreciating that provision of corporate guarantee provided by the assessee company in favour of its AE constitutes an international transaction as per explanation to Section 92B with retrospective effect from ... that the independent lender has granted loan to the AE placing reliance on the asset base of the assessee company by virtue of the corporate guarantee given by the assessee company to its AE and hence, the provision of corporate guarantee by the assessee company confers substantial benefit

Ihs Global Private Limited, Srj Park, Tower One, Mobius Bk vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 295/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri DK Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 153(5)Section 254Section 92C

July 2017. 73. The only aspect which could not have been conclusively determined on or before 31 December 2018 was the issue pertaining to corporate guarantee and this since although the Special Bench had answered the reference on 23 August 2017, the appeal of the assessee came to be disposed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5296/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate/Shri Ninad Patade, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi, Sr. D/R
Section 92B

advance payment, performance bond and letter. By way of security for providing these facilities FGB required the assessee to execute irrevocable and unconditional corporate guarantee and accordingly, performance guarantee was given by FGB in favour of Road Transport Authority, Dubai. It was only a guarantee that Afcons Mideast would ... performance of the contract by the assessee. Thus, we agree with the contention of the ld. Senior Counsel that giving the performance of the corporate guarantee was to execute the work which in effect was carried out by the assessee itself for which the majority of the profit

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Afcon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2390/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate/Shri Ninad Patade, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi, Sr. D/R
Section 92B

advance payment, performance bond and letter. By way of security for providing these facilities FGB required the assessee to execute irrevocable and unconditional corporate guarantee and accordingly, performance guarantee was given by FGB in favour of Road Transport Authority, Dubai. It was only a guarantee that Afcons Mideast would ... performance of the contract by the assessee. Thus, we agree with the contention of the ld. Senior Counsel that giving the performance of the corporate guarantee was to execute the work which in effect was carried out by the assessee itself for which the majority of the profit

Mayur Global Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 906/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 154Section 234A

Further we submit that the holding company availed a credit facility from CANARA BANK (hereinafter referred as the bank) and the assessee company provided corporate guarantee. Further it is pertinent to mention that both the holding and assessee company started facing financial difficulties from the financial year

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Rs.1,53,75,780/- in respect of import of traded spares and Rs.5,83,21,794/- in respect of payment of corporate guarantee fees) was proposed by the Ld. TPO vide his order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) after incorporating ... identical issues in respect of export of parts and component-service spares and export of parts and components – global sourcing and payment of corporate guarantee fees. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee raised an additional claim pertaining to refund of excess taxes paid on dividend distributed. The assessee claimed

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Bangaore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 241/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 72

having interest in SMNTL. 3. There was an investment made by the assessee in the company SMNTL for which, the assessee has given financial/ corporate guarantee, which is out of the investment activities and has no relation with the business activities of the assessee. 4. The deduction claimed

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 556/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 556/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aban Offshore Limited, V. Tax, 113, Janpriya Crest, Corporate Circle -1(1), Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai. Tamilnadu – 600 008. [Pan:Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Virtual) ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nanda Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Nanda Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35DSection 90Section 92C

dated 13/10/2017 proposing a total upward adjustment of Rs.20,69,69,338/- to the ALP of assessee’s transaction of extension of corporate guarantee on behalf of its AE. The AO issued a draft assessment order dated 28/12/2017 passed U/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA of the :-3-: ITA. No:556/Chny/2024 Act. Subsequently

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

No.688/Mds/2015 dated 04.03.2016 and thereafter, decide the issue in accordance to law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 3. Corporate guarantee given to the AE, wherein, the TPO made adjustment of Rs.35,64,938/-. 3.1 The TPO noted that the assessee company has provided corporate guarantee on behalf ... since, no guarantee fee has been collected from its AE, he was of the opinion that 1% of the value of the corporate guarantee should be adjusted and made adjustment of Rs.35,64,938/-. In this regard, the Ld.AR submitted that this issue is covered by the decision

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 352/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

other pharmaceutical products. For the assessment year 2017-18, it filed the return of income on 28/11/2017. In respect of the international transactions of Corporate Guarantee fee and interest on receivables, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO) suggested upward adjustments incorporating which the learned Assessing Officer passed the draft ... these appeals. 3. Insofar as these two appeals are concerned, all these three issues are involved. Those are additions made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 321/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

other pharmaceutical products. For the assessment year 2017-18, it filed the return of income on 28/11/2017. In respect of the international transactions of Corporate Guarantee fee and interest on receivables, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO) suggested upward adjustments incorporating which the learned Assessing Officer passed the draft ... these appeals. 3. Insofar as these two appeals are concerned, all these three issues are involved. Those are additions made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad Knowledge City vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 351/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

For Appellant: Advocate BG ReddyFor Respondent: Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 35

products. For the assessment year 2016-17, it filed the return of income on 28/11/2016. In respect of the interna"onal transac"ons of Corporate Guarantee fee and interest on receivables, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO) suggested upward adjustments incorpora"ng which the learned Assessing Officer passed ... appeals. 3. Insofar as these two appeals are concerned, all these three issues are involved. Those are addi"ons made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 320/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

For Appellant: Advocate BG ReddyFor Respondent: Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 35

products. For the assessment year 2016-17, it filed the return of income on 28/11/2016. In respect of the interna"onal transac"ons of Corporate Guarantee fee and interest on receivables, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO) suggested upward adjustments incorpora"ng which the learned Assessing Officer passed ... appeals. 3. Insofar as these two appeals are concerned, all these three issues are involved. Those are addi"ons made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall

Je Energy Ventures Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

have erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 12,32,98,585/- by: 1.2.1 incorrectly considering the provision of corporate guarantee as an international transaction u/s 92B of the Income-tax Act 1961 ('the Act'); 1.2.2 incorrectly holding that the international transaction of provision of corporate guarantee ... envisaged under the Act; 1.2.3 ignoring the fact that no service subsists after default of loan by the borrower thus warranting no payment of corporate guarantee fees. 1.2.4 ignoring the fact that the Hull-White model has no legal recognition under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2.5 ignoring the fact

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

ITA 74/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35

erred in law and on facts of the case by deleting the upward adjustment of Rs.6127088/- on account of corporate guarantee tees made by the TPO. 11 I.T.A Nos. 53 &74/Ahd/2020 Page No. (Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd.) A.Y. 2010-11 (2) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... facts of the case by ignoring the fact that corporate guarantee is clearly in the nature of an international transactions as defined by the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act. (3) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by ignoring

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

ITA 53/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Parin Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35

erred in law and on facts of the case by deleting the upward adjustment of Rs.6127088/- on account of corporate guarantee tees made by the TPO. 11 I.T.A Nos. 53 &74/Ahd/2020 Page No. (Cadila Pharmaceutical Ltd.) A.Y. 2010-11 (2) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... facts of the case by ignoring the fact that corporate guarantee is clearly in the nature of an international transactions as defined by the Explanation to Section 92B of the Act. (3) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by ignoring

DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5935/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5848/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan: Aaaci1747H Vs. The Acit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 5935/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Dcit- Ltu-1, World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005. Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Ltd.), Corporate Finance Division, A2, Aditya Birla Centre, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, S.K. Ahire Marg, Vs. Worli, Mumbai-400030. Pan : Aaaci1747H Respondent) Appellant) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken Shah, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai Dated 27.06.2017 For

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi / Riken ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

covered u/s 43B of the Act and is to be allowed on payment basis. Upholding the action of the TPO of treating corporate guarantee given to subsidiaries as international transaction and partly confirming the additions made by the TPO. Claim of Education and Secondary and Higher Education Cess ... Erred in directing to treat interest subsidy from TUF as capital in nature Erred in restricting the ALP of guarantee fees in respect of corporate guarantee given to AE to 0.5% as against 2.42% as held by AO/TPO Erred in restricting ALP of performance guarantee fees to 0.5% as against