“corporate guarantee”

Greaves Cotton Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.7742/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2010-11) Greaves Cotton Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Motilal Oswal Tower, Junction Of Gokhale & Sayani Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. Pan: Aaacg-2062-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Smt. Aarti Vissanji, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr.A.R सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order

115O Ground H : General 3. In ground –‘A’ of appeal, the assessee has assailed TP adjustment of Rs.27,42,175/- in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee has extended guarantee in the form of stewardship activity for its Associated Enterprise (AE) Greaves Ferymann Diesel GmbH, Germany to ABN Amro Bank ... Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) made adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee @ 2.81% of the loan amount utilized by the AE. The Assessing Officer and DRP has upheld the same. Against the said adjustment, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Smt. Aarti Vissanji appearing on behalf

Siddhayu Ayurvedic Research Foundtion P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: M/s. Siddhayu Ayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.5027/Mum./2013 “GROUND TREATING THE INTEREST PAID TO BANK CORPORATE GUARANTEE GIVEN AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDER SECTION SB OF THE ACT 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... upholding the action Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Assessing Officer (AO) in treating the interest paid to bank and corporate guarantee fee as “international transaction” u/s 92B of the Act. 2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a. The Appellant was not into the business of providing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the Appellant. ii) The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the fact that providing corporate guarantee is a shareholder activity and therefore it is not an international transaction. iii) Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT(A) erred in not restricting ... without appreciating the facts and the submissions made by the appellant. v) The CIT(A) further erred in failing to distinguish between a corporate guarantee given on behalf of a 100% subsidiary, as in the appellant's case and guarantees given by Banks, as adopted

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the Appellant. ii) The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the fact that providing corporate guarantee is a shareholder activity and therefore it is not an international transaction. iii) Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT(A) erred in not restricting ... without appreciating the facts and the submissions made by the appellant. v) The CIT(A) further erred in failing to distinguish between a corporate guarantee given on behalf of a 100% subsidiary, as in the appellant's case and guarantees given by Banks, as adopted

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Zee Entertinment Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.512/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Zee Entertainment Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Enterprises Ltd. Vs. 18Th Floor, A Wing, Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Marathon Futurex, N. M. 400020. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0243R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jay Bhansali Revenue By: Shri Vinod Tanwani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Facts In Brief Are That Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 23.11.2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.9,53,02,05,770/- Which Was Revised To Rs.9,53,45,48,223/- On 31.03.2015. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Has Entered Into International Transactions With Its Aes (Associated Enterprises) M/S. Taj Tv & Therefore A Reference Was Made Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act Dated 23.03.2015 To Transfer Pricing Officer-4(2), Mumbai. The Assessee Is In The Business Of Broadcasting Of Satellite Television Channels, Space Selling Agent For Other Television Channels, Sale Of Television Programmes, Films, Movies Etc. The Ao Finally Framed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C (13) Of The Act By Making Two Additions

respect of transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA(3) as per TPO order to the tune of Rs.1,28,66,040/- in respect of corporate guarantee given by the assessee @ 1.5% of the total outstanding balance of facility obtained from Deutsche Bank [against 1% charged by the assessee ... challenged only the action of Ld CIT(A) deleting the transfer pricing adjustment to the tune of Rs.1,28,66,040/- in respect of corporate guarantee. 3. Ground No.1 of Revenue as noted is against the impugned action of deletion of Transfer Pricing Adjustment/addition of Rs.1,28,66,040/- which

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

assessee. Pertinently, while sustaining a part of the adjustment made by the TPO, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has equated the letter of comfort/support to corporate guarantee. In our view, on perusal of the letter of comfort/support, it cannot be construed to be in the nature of any sort of guarantee

Dy CIT, Cir-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’), inter- alia, upon perusal of schedule to balance sheet observed that assessee has given corporate guarantees to the lenders of Reid and Taylor India Ltd, Brand House Retails Ltd and on behalf of subsidiary companies for an amount ... international transaction under section 92B of the Act. The TPO applied Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’) method for benchmarking the transactions of provision of corporate guarantee. The TPO held that the guarantee, in present case, is basically in nature of performance guarantee which clearly assures the licensor of the brand that

Dy CIT, Cir-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’), inter- alia, upon perusal of schedule to balance sheet observed that assessee has given corporate guarantees to the lenders of Reid and Taylor India Ltd, Brand House Retails Ltd and on behalf of subsidiary companies for an amount ... international transaction under section 92B of the Act. The TPO applied Comparable Uncontrolled Price (‘CUP’) method for benchmarking the transactions of provision of corporate guarantee. The TPO held that the guarantee, in present case, is basically in nature of performance guarantee which clearly assures the licensor of the brand that

DCIT Circle- 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Appellant and delete the addition.” ITA No.2741/M/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 GROUND NO. 1: TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK INVOLVED IN GIVING CORPORATE GUARANTEE ON LOANS ADVANCED TO THE AE: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disregarding ... facts of this case. We have held that even after the amendment in Section 92 B'by amending Explanation to Section 92 B, a corporate guarantee issued for the benefit of the AEs, which does not involve any costs to the assessee, does not have any bearing on profits, income

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Appellant and delete the addition.” ITA No.2741/M/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 GROUND NO. 1: TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK INVOLVED IN GIVING CORPORATE GUARANTEE ON LOANS ADVANCED TO THE AE: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disregarding ... facts of this case. We have held that even after the amendment in Section 92 B'by amending Explanation to Section 92 B, a corporate guarantee issued for the benefit of the AEs, which does not involve any costs to the assessee, does not have any bearing on profits, income

ACIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year : 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Appellant and delete the addition.” ITA No.2741/M/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 GROUND NO. 1: TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK INVOLVED IN GIVING CORPORATE GUARANTEE ON LOANS ADVANCED TO THE AE: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disregarding ... facts of this case. We have held that even after the amendment in Section 92 B'by amending Explanation to Section 92 B, a corporate guarantee issued for the benefit of the AEs, which does not involve any costs to the assessee, does not have any bearing on profits, income

M Pallonji Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem.Pallonji Shipping Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(2)(2) Ltd.46A Veetrag Mumbai Chambers, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm4615L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr.K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

nature of quasi capital. (iii). The AE MPS Singapore created charge over its assets i.e. ships with the bankers and AE has also provided corporate guarantee to the lending bank. (iv) The assessee has not even claimed deduction for interest expenditure incurred in respect of the aforesaid loans obtained from

Rolta India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 763/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Rolta India Ltd. Rolta Tower-A, Rolta Technology Park, 22Nd Street, Midc, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai 400 093 Pan: Aaacr-2711-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1(1), Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexure, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Shekhar Gupta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalla Jha

pressing ground No.1 of the appeal. 2 2.1 In respect of ground No.2 assailing Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.93.33 crores on account of corporate guarantee commission, the Id.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case ... decided on 29/08/2019. 3. Ms.Vatsalaa Jha representing the Department vehemently defended the findings of Assessing Officer on the issue of T.P adjustment en corporate guarantee commission. However, the Id. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the Tribunal in assessee's own case in preceding assessment years has considered this issue

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

order of DRP for the Assessment Years 2013-14 (ITA No. 7151/Mum/2017) and 2014-15 (ITA No. 6083/Mum/2018), the Tribunal accepted the ALP for corporate guarantee determined by the Appellant and deleted the transfer pricing addition. We note that same view has been taken by the co-ordinate bench ... 7673/Mum/2012 and A.Y 2009- 10, ITA No. 1703/Mum/2014, vide a consolidated order dated 21.06.2019 had approved the determination of ALP of corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to a foreign bank for facilitating raising of loans by its foreign AE on the basis of the Internal CUP i.e guarantee commission

DCIT- CC -8 (1), Mumbai vs. All Cargo Logistics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Learned Cit(A). He Submitted That Learned Cit(A) Noticed That Guarantee Commission Was Adopted At 0.50% In The Assessee’S Own Case For A.Y. 2010-11 & The Same Was Also Supported By The Decision Rendered By Hon'Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (378 Itr 57). Accordingly Learned Cit(A) Directed The Assessing Officer/Tpo To Re-Compute Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account

Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in restricting the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of corporate guarantee to 0.5% of the guaranteed amount as against 2% determined by the TPO. 2. Learned AR submitted that the assessee had provided corporate guarantee of Rs. 115.43 crores ... Accordingly learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to re-compute transfer pricing adjustment on account 2 M/s.Allcargo Logistics Ltd. of corporate guarantee given to AE at 0.50% of the guaranteed amount. The Learned AR submitted that the order so passed by learned CIT(A) does not call