← 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

M/S Tata Elxsi Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 907/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Assistant Itpl Road, Commissioner Of Hoody, Income Tax, Whitefield Road, Ao As Special Range 7, Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 By Ld.Cit(A)-7, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7(1)(1) (`A0'), Bangalore Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Appeals)-7 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Partly Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Grounds Relating To Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Of The Act 2.1. The Learned Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Deduction Under Section 80Jjaa Amounting To Rs. 13,14,23,244/-

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 28Section 37Section 80J

event of default by TEL, the membership interests of TEL in new company i.e. A2E2 will automatically terminate. ii. The copy of the 'Corporate Guarantee' agreement dated 02-12-2011 mentions that the agreement is made between the Citi Bank and the principal (A Square Entertainment ... under the agreement, the principals' obligation are now due and payable to the Bank in fill! amounting to USD 30,17,660.65/-. However, the Corporate Guarantee Agreement dated 02-12-2011 provides that the guarantor (TEL) agrees to indemnify the Bank any cost, loss or liability in the event

Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the adjustment on corporate guarantee @1% as against @0.20 as computed by the Assessee, without appreciating the facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... 3290/M/2015 before us. ITA No.4675 & 3290/Mum/2015 Asian Paints Ltd; AY 10-11 07. The learned CIT – A deleted the adjustment on account of corporate guarantee charges made by the learned transfer pricing officer at the rate of 1% against 0.20% computed by the assessee, also restricted the adjustment on account

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA
Section 92BSection 92C

erred in law and on facts in considering the “Liability 8. written back" amounting to Rs.2,74,675/- as a non-operating income. Corporate Guarantee Commission a)The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts in holding that corporate guarantee given to a third

M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2764/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA
Section 92BSection 92C

erred in law and on facts in considering the “Liability 8. written back" amounting to Rs.2,74,675/- as a non-operating income. Corporate Guarantee Commission a)The learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts in holding that corporate guarantee given to a third