TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether guarantee commission on corporate guarantees issued for associated enterprises was to be benchmarked at 1.75% or restricted to 0.5%; (ii) whether interest subsidy received under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme was capital in nature and, if so, whether it was liable to tax and includible in book profit under section 115JB; (iii) whether disallowance under section 14A was sustainable in respect of strategic investments and interest expenditure.
Issue (i): Whether guarantee commission on corporate guarantees issued for associated enterprises was to be benchmarked at 1.75% or restricted to 0.5%?
Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in a similar case involving the assessee's group concern. The reasoning accepted that corporate guarantee fee could not be equated with bank guarantee charges, and that the comparable rate had already been judicially accepted at 0.5% in the earlier binding line of authorities followed by the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The addition was restricted to 0.5% and the higher benchmarking at 1.75% was rejected, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether interest subsidy received under the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme was capital in nature and, if so, whether it was liable to tax and includible in book profit under section 115JB?
Analysis: The subsidy scheme was found to be designed to promote modernization, technology upgradation and competitiveness of the textile industry. Applying the purpose test, the subsidy was held to be a capital receipt, not a revenue receipt. Once held to be capital in nature and outside the charging provision, it could not be brought to tax as income. For the same reason, the amount was also held not includible in book profit under section 115JB.
Conclusion: The subsidy was held to be a capital receipt not chargeable to tax, and it was directed to be excluded from book profit, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether disallowance under section 14A was sustainable in respect of strategic investments and interest expenditure?
Analysis: The investments were found to be largely strategic investments in group concerns and not made for earning dividend income. The assessee also had sufficient interest-free funds, attracting the presumption that investments were from own funds. On that basis, interest disallowance was deleted. The administrative component under rule 8D was not finally deleted and was restored for recomputation in accordance with the later Supreme Court decision governing the provision.
Conclusion: Interest disallowance under section 14A was deleted, while the administrative disallowance was restored for recomputation, partly in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the principal transfer pricing, subsidy, and interest-disallowance issues, but the administrative disallowance aspect under section 14A was left for fresh quantification, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsidy granted for technology upgradation and industrial modernization is to be tested by its purpose and, when it serves a capital objective, it retains the character of capital receipt and cannot be taxed or included in book profits as income.
TaxTMI 
