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 :

        2019 (1) TMI 152 - 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 upholds Transfer Pricing Officer's adjustment in corporate guarantee ALP The tribunal upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's adjustment of &8377;1,54,82,741 in the arms length price (ALP) for a corporate guarantee provided ...
                        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 upholds Transfer Pricing Officer's adjustment in corporate guarantee ALP

                            The tribunal upheld the Transfer Pricing Officer's adjustment of &8377;1,54,82,741 in the arms length price (ALP) for a corporate guarantee provided by the assessee to its associated enterprise (AE) in Singapore. The ALP was determined at 0.5% per annum, following the rule of consistency established in previous cases. The tribunal emphasized the need for compensation by the AE for benefits received from the corporate guarantee, aligning with earlier rulings and ensuring uniformity in ALP determination for similar transactions involving corporate guarantees.




                            Issues:
                            Determination of arms length price (ALP) under section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for commission chargeable by the assessee from its associated enterprises (AE) on international transactions.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Issue of ALP determination for commission chargeable by the assessee from its AE:
                            - The primary issue in this appeal revolves around the determination of the arms length price (ALP) under section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the commission charged by the assessee from its associated enterprise (AE) on international transactions. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed an adjustment of &8377;1,54,82,741 in the ALP of the international transaction involving the provision of a corporate guarantee by the assessee to its AE based in Singapore. The TPO's adjustment led to the addition of the same amount to the assessee's income as determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment order. The assessee contested this addition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2010-11 but was unsuccessful. The CIT(A) relied on the decision for the previous year, AY 2009-10, and dismissed the appeal based on the rule of consistency.

                            2. Consistency in ALP determination for corporate guarantee commission:
                            - The issue of consistency in determining the ALP for corporate guarantee commissions provided by the assessee to its AE was also highlighted in the judgment. In a previous appeal for AY 2009-10, the ITAT Mumbai had computed the ALP at 0.5% of the corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE in Singapore. This decision was upheld by the ITAT, and the ALP was determined at 0.5% per annum. Subsequently, in another appeal for AY 2012-13, the ITAT again computed the ALP at 0.5% for the same transaction. The tribunal, following the rule of consistency and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, determined the ALP of the corporate guarantee commission at 0.5% for the international transaction involving the provision of a corporate guarantee by the assessee to its AE in Singapore for availing loans.

                            3. Judicial decisions and application of ALP rate:
                            - The judgment referred to various judicial decisions where the ALP adjustments were upheld, emphasizing the need for compensation by the AE for the benefits received from the corporate guarantee provided by the assessee. The tribunal, in line with its previous decisions and the principles established in relevant case laws, determined the ALP of the corporate guarantee commission at 0.5% on the international transaction. This approach was consistent with the earlier rulings and aimed to ensure uniformity in the ALP determination process for similar transactions involving corporate guarantees.

                            By analyzing the issues related to the determination of arms length price for the commission charged by the assessee from its associated enterprises on international transactions, the judgment highlighted the significance of consistency in ALP determination and the application of established principles and judicial decisions in resolving transfer pricing disputes.
                            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