← 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

DCIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), Delhi vs. Karmanya Education Foundation, Delhi

ITA 3479/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (Exemption), Vs Karmanya Education Foundation, Circle-1(1), Y-89, Ground Floor, Delhi. Hauz Khas, Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aaccc6567F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate; Mrs. Mansha Anand, Advocate; Shri Aditya Rathore, Advocate; Sh Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv;& Shri Sohum Dua, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10496/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 29.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT- DR
Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.25,28,757/- on account of Corporate guarantee. It will be worth mentioning here that the subsidiary company has not charged any amount towards the Corporate Guarantee extended by it which raises

M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Protection Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Neac Delhi

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 128/CHANDI/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.127/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.128/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Addl. Cit Protection Ltd. Nfac बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road Delhi Vs. Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Distt. Sas Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Khanna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Is In Second Round Of Litigation Since The Appeal Was Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.60/Chd/2013 & Ita No.100/Chd/2013 Common Order Dated 23-07-2018 For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10 Wherein Few Of The Issues Were Restored Back To Lower

For Appellant: Shri Anil Khanna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

Rs.201.60 Lacs; (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.34.60 Lacs; (iv) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on reimbursement of expenses; (v) Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Corporate Guarantee charges. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, these grounds are adjudicated as under. 2. Disallowance of Commission Paid to working directors ... assessee’s AEs. Therefore, this adjustment stand deleted. The corresponding grounds of assessee’s appeal stand allowed. 6. Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of Corporate Guarantee 6.1 The Ld. DRP was directed to pass a speaking order meeting the objections of the assessee. The Ld. DRP held this transaction

M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Protection Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Neac Delhi

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.127/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.128/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Punjab Chemicals & Crop. Addl. Cit Protection Ltd. Nfac बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road Delhi Vs. Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Distt. Sas Nagar (Mohali), Punjab 140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Khanna (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2008-09 & 2009-10 Is In Second Round Of Litigation Since The Appeal Was Disposed-Off By Tribunal Vide Ita Nos.60/Chd/2013 & Ita No.100/Chd/2013 Common Order Dated 23-07-2018 For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10 Wherein Few Of The Issues Were Restored Back To Lower

For Appellant: Shri Anil Khanna (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)(iii)

Rs.201.60 Lacs; (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.34.60 Lacs; (iv) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on reimbursement of expenses; (v) Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Corporate Guarantee charges. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, these grounds are adjudicated as under. 2. Disallowance of Commission Paid to working directors ... assessee’s AEs. Therefore, this adjustment stand deleted. The corresponding grounds of assessee’s appeal stand allowed. 6. Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of Corporate Guarantee 6.1 The Ld. DRP was directed to pass a speaking order meeting the objections of the assessee. The Ld. DRP held this transaction

Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kadayiruppu vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kochi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 598/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 80GSection 92C

92CA(3) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing Order made an adjustment of Rs.2,03,38,752/- towards notional guarantee commission in respect of corporate guarantee given by the assessee for its Subsidiary.After receiving the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer made a draft assessment order ... 144C against the variations proposed by the Assessing Officer.By its order dated 31.05.2024, the ld. DRP reduced the additions in respect of Corporate Guarantee Commission amounting to Rs. 5,50,206/-. However, the disallowance proposed by the Assessing officer in the Draft Assessment Order in respect of deduction claimed