TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Mumbai favors assessee on transfer pricing: deletes interest adjustments, upholds guarantee fees, allows forex losses</h1> <h3>KEC International Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 (2) (1), Mumbai And (Vice-Versa)</h3> KEC International Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 (2) (1), Mumbai And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Arm's Length Price (ALP) of Corporate Guarantee Commission.2. Disallowance under Section 14A in computing Book Profits under Section 115JB.3. Deduction in respect of tax paid at foreign location.4. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Interest on Advances to Associated Enterprises.5. Unrealized Foreign Exchange Loss (Mark to Market).Summary:Issue 1: Arm's Length Price (ALP) of Corporate Guarantee CommissionThe assessee challenged the adjustment confirmed by the CIT(A) for the corporate guarantee commission at 0.20% on loans taken by Associated Enterprises (AE). The CIT(A) followed the decision of the coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier years and upheld the ALP of the guarantee commission at 0.20%. The Tribunal confirmed this, noting that the guarantee fees with respect to various guarantees where the assessee recovered the commission at 0.6% were upheld in earlier years. The Tribunal directed to recompute the guarantee fee income at 0.20% for financial guarantees given to ICICI Bank UK on behalf of KEC Transmission LLC and KEC US LLC.Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A in computing Book Profits under Section 115JBThe CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 93,145 made by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D in computing book profits under Section 115JB. The Tribunal found this issue covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. and allowed the ground, noting that the assessee did not receive any exempt income during the year.Issue 3: Deduction in respect of tax paid at foreign locationThe CIT(A) did not allow the deduction claimed by the assessee for taxes paid at foreign locations. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as the assessee did not substantiate it with any arguments.Issue 4: Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Interest on Advances to Associated EnterprisesThe CIT(A) deleted the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 13,40,72,569 on interest on advances given to AE, holding that the advances were towards the fulfillment of the assessee's obligation as a joint venture partner and not a loan. The Tribunal upheld this, following the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13.Issue 5: Unrealized Foreign Exchange Loss (Mark to Market)The CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of unrealized foreign exchange loss under normal provisions and for computing book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal upheld this, following its decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, noting that MTM losses on hedging contracts are accrued losses and hence allowable expenditure.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the AO, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on the main issues involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
