Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2016 (9) TMI 1456 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal directs re-assessment of loan price & deletion of corporate guarantee addition The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) to re-assess the arm's length ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal directs re-assessment of loan price & deletion of corporate guarantee addition

                          The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) to re-assess the arm's length price of the loan and delete the addition for the corporate guarantee. The Tribunal found that the loan provided to Tega Bahamas was quasi-equity and should be benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, rejecting the TPO's methodology. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the corporate guarantee was a shareholder activity aimed at protecting the assessee's investment, not subject to transfer pricing adjustments.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Inter-Corporate Loan
                          2. Corporate Guarantee

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Inter-Corporate Loan:

                          The facts of the case reveal that Tega Industries Ltd. (the assessee) set up Tega Investment Ltd., Bahamas (Tega Bahamas) as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to acquire two South African companies. To facilitate this acquisition, the assessee provided a shareholder loan to Tega Bahamas and a corporate guarantee to ICICI Bank UK. The TPO proposed an upward adjustment for the corporate guarantee and interest-free loan provided by the assessee.

                          The assessee argued that the shareholder loan and guarantee were provided as a substitute for equity funding and thus should not warrant any charges. However, the TPO computed an additional charge for interest-free loans at Rs. 2,883,461, based on a higher risk spread.

                          The assessee conducted a Transfer Pricing Study (TP-Study Report) and selected the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method as the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length rate of interest. The study identified 20 comparable borrowings with an average rate of LIBOR plus 87 basis points. The assessee offered LIBOR plus 100 bps as interest income to tax.

                          The TPO, however, disregarded the assessee's contention and computed the arm's length price of the loan advanced to Tega Bahamas at 13.75%, resulting in an upward adjustment. The DRP confirmed the TPO's order but directed that interest should be charged for the actual period the loan was outstanding.

                          The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the loan was quasi-equity and should be benchmarked using the CUP method. The Tribunal also observed that the TPO's methodology was flawed and required fresh examination. The issue was restored to the TPO/AO for re-assessment of the arm's length price of the loan.

                          2. Corporate Guarantee:

                          The assessee provided a corporate guarantee to ICICI Bank UK for a loan taken by Tega Bahamas. The TPO made a transfer pricing adjustment for the corporate guarantee at 2.5%, resulting in an additional charge of Rs. 9,00,979. The TPO argued that the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee was a service and had a bearing on the profits or losses of the entities involved.

                          The assessee contended that the corporate guarantee was a shareholder activity and should not be subject to transfer pricing adjustments. The assessee cited various guidelines and judicial precedents to support its claim that the guarantee was quasi-equity in nature and merited no consideration.

                          The DRP confirmed the TPO's adjustment, stating that the guarantee provided a benefit to the AE and should be charged at arm's length. The DRP rejected the assessee's argument that the guarantee was a shareholder service.

                          The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submissions, noting that the guarantee was provided to protect the assessee's investment and facilitate the acquisition of the South African companies. The Tribunal observed that no third party would have granted the loan to Tega Bahamas given its skewed debt-equity ratio. The Tribunal concluded that the guarantee was a shareholder activity and directed the DRP/AO to delete the addition.

                          Conclusion:

                          The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to re-assess the arm's length price of the loan and delete the addition for the corporate guarantee.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found