← 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

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1152/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 92C

require any specific adjudication. 4. Ground Nos.2 to 4.5 raised by the assessee are challenging the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of alleged corporate guarantee and alleged standby letter of credit given by the assessee on behalf of its associate enterprise (AE). 5. We have heard the rival submissions ... lamps Comparable 34,25,33,470 Uncontrolled Price 2. Standby letter of credit (SBLC for No Benchmarking 6,32,40,000 short) Required 3. Corporate Guarantee (CG for No Benchmarking 10,71,86,440 short) required 6. The ld. AO was of the view that the transactions in relation

Phoenix Lamps Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 1702/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 92C

require any specific adjudication. 4. Ground Nos.2 to 4.5 raised by the assessee are challenging the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of alleged corporate guarantee and alleged standby letter of credit given by the assessee on behalf of its associate enterprise (AE). 5. We have heard the rival submissions ... lamps Comparable 34,25,33,470 Uncontrolled Price 2. Standby letter of credit (SBLC for No Benchmarking 6,32,40,000 short) Required 3. Corporate Guarantee (CG for No Benchmarking 10,71,86,440 short) required 6. The ld. AO was of the view that the transactions in relation