← 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

Medreich Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 451/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 451/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Medreich Ltd., No. 12/8, Medreich The Assistant House, Commissioner Of Saraswati Ammal Income Tax, Street, Central Circle – Maruti Seva Nagar, 1(2), Vs. Bangalore – 560 033. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm1458Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-10-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Ld.Acit, Central Circle – 1(2), Bangalore Dated 26/04/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General Ground 1.1 The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore (`A0') Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act) In The Manner Passed

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92B

appreciating properly the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable. 3. Grounds relating to computation of Ali' for transaction relating to Corporate Guarantee Fees 3.1 The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in making an addition of Rs. 25,80,266 on account of corporate guarantee ... fees received from its Associated Enterprise (`AE'). 3.2 The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in considering the transaction of corporate guarantee as an international transaction under section 92B of the Act. 3.3 The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP erred in not demonstrating as to how the transaction

ITO - 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M. W. Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6689/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalito-4(2)(4), Room No. 647, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S M.W.Corp. Pvt. Ltd. 99, Niranjan, Marine Drive, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aafcm1365G ..... Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair- Cit(Dr) Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 14.09.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita Nair- CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 56

with reference to credit facility availed by its subsidiary for the purpose of business activity. The guarantee given by the assessee is a corporate guarantee which is being continued from the earlier year with regard to the credit facility availed by the subsidiary company. The assessee company and its subsidiary ... same line of business hence it can be concluded that corporate guarantee given by the assessee is in due course of business and is a regular business practice amongst the holding and subsidiary company. The contention of the AO that it should be assessed under the head income from other

Dy CIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfs Shipping (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8003/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.8002 & 8003/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy Cit Cc 1(2) Mumbai M/S. Pfs Shipping 906 9Th Flr Pratishtha (India) Ltd. बिधम/ Bhavan Old Cgo Bldg 5Th Flr Bhupati (Annex) M K Road. Chambers 13 Natjew Vs. Mumbai 400004 Road, Opera House. Mumbai 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadca8387L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha-Cit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha-CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92

both the years are that, order Ld. CIT (A) as erred and law in directing that TPO to reduced the transfer pricing adjustment of corporate guarantee given for the AE to 0.5% instead of 3% charged by the TPO relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court ... Arms Length Price(ALP) with reference to international transaction reported in form 3 CEB with its AE. The TPO noted that Assessee has given Corporate Guarantee to ICICI Bank, Singapore Branch and SBI Singapore Branch in respect of loans taken by the AEs totaling to USD 22.80 Million

Dy CIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pfs Shipping (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8002/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.8002 & 8003/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy Cit Cc 1(2) Mumbai M/S. Pfs Shipping 906 9Th Flr Pratishtha (India) Ltd. बिधम/ Bhavan Old Cgo Bldg 5Th Flr Bhupati (Annex) M K Road. Chambers 13 Natjew Vs. Mumbai 400004 Road, Opera House. Mumbai 400004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadca8387L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha-Cit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha-CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92

both the years are that, order Ld. CIT (A) as erred and law in directing that TPO to reduced the transfer pricing adjustment of corporate guarantee given for the AE to 0.5% instead of 3% charged by the TPO relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court ... Arms Length Price(ALP) with reference to international transaction reported in form 3 CEB with its AE. The TPO noted that Assessee has given Corporate Guarantee to ICICI Bank, Singapore Branch and SBI Singapore Branch in respect of loans taken by the AEs totaling to USD 22.80 Million

Mega Soft Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 733/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.733/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Mega Soft Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner – No.85, Kutchery Road, Of Income Tax, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabcm 8933 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.M.Muraleedhara Reddy,Ca & Mr.Nagaprasad, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Dr.S.Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 144(5)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

Without prejudice to the ground that TNMM is not the most appropriate method, the DRP/AO erred in making a separate upward adjustment on Corporate guarantee provided to the Associated Enterprise (AE) when adopting TNMM as most appropriate method. 8. The AO/DRP erred in not disclosing the standard filters used ... data of the comparable is not provided to the Appellant. 15. Whether the AO/DRP is right in making upward adjustment on account of corporate guarantee provided by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises? M/s.Mega Soft Ltd. :: 3 :: 16.Whether the AO/DRP is right in not disclosing the most appropriate method

Raj Rayon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 830/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.830/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Raj Rayon Industries Ltd बिधम/ Pcit-3 Survey No. 177/1/3 & 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 177/1/4, Village Surangi, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Silvassa-396230 (Ut Of Road, Mumbai-400020. Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu)-396230. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7820E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

loans/advances/deposits. Section (V) Clause (I) (I) All liabilities (including non-fund based facilities/debt of the company) (whether contingent or crystallized) in relation to any corporate guarantees, indemnities and all other forms of credit support provided by the Corporate Debtor prior to the NCLT Approval Date shall stand extinguished. 8. Section