TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether transfer pricing adjustment was warranted in respect of interest paid by the assessee on behalf of its associated enterprise where the amount was not claimed as an expenditure; and (ii) whether the corporate guarantee fee adjustment should be benchmarked at 2.5% or reduced to 0.5%.
Issue (i): Whether transfer pricing adjustment was warranted in respect of interest paid by the assessee on behalf of its associated enterprise where the amount was not claimed as an expenditure.
Analysis: The adjustment was made under the transfer pricing regime in Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the footing that the interest borne by the assessee for the associated enterprise had an arm's length value of nil. The assessee had not claimed the interest as an expense and the payment did not affect the taxable income in India. Since the transaction was revenue neutral and did not result in any claimed deduction or income manipulation, the transfer pricing provisions were held inapplicable to that item.
Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest paid on behalf of the associated enterprise was deleted, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the corporate guarantee fee adjustment should be benchmarked at 2.5% or reduced to 0.5%.
Analysis: The assessee challenged the benchmarking of the corporate guarantee commission at 2.5% and sought reduction to 0.5%. Relying on the binding jurisdictional precedent adopted in the reasoning, the charge for furnishing corporate guarantee was taken at 0.5% as the appropriate arm's length rate.
Conclusion: The corporate guarantee adjustment was restricted by applying a 0.5% guarantee commission, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the principal transfer pricing issues, with deletion of the interest-related adjustment and reduction of the corporate guarantee benchmarking rate, while the remaining ground was not separately adjudicated.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer pricing adjustment is not attracted where the alleged international transaction is revenue neutral and the related expenditure has not been claimed as a deduction; corporate guarantee benchmarking may be determined at 0.5% where that rate is adopted as the appropriate arm's length measure.
TaxTMI 
