← 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 710/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.710/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Vs. Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aabca7366H (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 24.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri B.G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Length Price (“ALP”). The Ld. TPO, vide order dated 30.10.2023, proposed the adjustments for Rs.30,86,07,356/- on account of corporate guarantee fee and Rs.68,12,81,218/- on account of interest on delayed trade receivables. Based on the said adjustments, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed ... additions made by Ld. AO in the final assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On the issue of corporate guarantee fee, the Ld. CIT(A), relying on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2017-18 in ITA Nos.321

Precision Camshafts Ltd., Solapur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (NFAC), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 928Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AD /Ld TPO has erred in proposing TP adjustment to the international transaction of corporate guarantee amounting to INR 30.98,000 to the total income by rejecting TP analysis conducted by the Appellant 2. Corporate Guarantee as an international transactions ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while erred in arriving at arm's length price of corporate guarantee provided by the Appellant, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO has erred in the following - ignored the fact that the corporate guarantee provided to subsidiary is in the nature

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

Income-tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)- NFAC') is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Additions @ 1% u/s 92CA(3) towards notional Corporate Guarantee fees - Rs.1,22,93,500: 2. 1. The CIT(A)-NFAC is not justified in upholding the additions towards corporate guarantee ... have any bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the assessee; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have appreciated that, the corporate guarantees have been provided by the appellant as a stewardship /shareholder activity and not a business transaction that needs to be ITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024

Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd., Mohali vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1, Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 316/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 316/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd. Addl. Cit बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road, Range-1 Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Chandigarh Vs. District Sas Nagar Mohali-140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anil Khanna (Ca). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Khanna (CA). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs.43.68 Lacs; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.0.23 Lacs; (iii) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on Corporate Guarantee; (iv) Set-off of brought forward losses. These grounds are adjudicated as under. 2. Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) In view ... earned any exmept income during the year. Therefore, this disallowance has no legs to stand. We order so. 4. Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of Corporate Guarantee The Ld. TPO computed Arm’s Length Price of Corporate Guarantee Charges at Rs.59.52 Lacs. The same was computed at the rate