Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that once the corporate guarantee given by the assessee for the benefit of its associated enterprise (AE) was invoked by the EXIM Bank, the transaction between the assessee and the EXIM Bank did not constitute an international transaction u/s 92B(2) of the Income Tax Act. The vital constituent of an international transaction is that it should be between associated enterprises. After the surety (assessee) paid the guaranteed debt, it was subrogated to the rights of the creditor (EXIM Bank) against the principal debtor (AE). However, this subrogation did not create a new debt in the books of the guarantor. Therefore, the tax authorities erred in treating the invoked guarantee as a loan to the AE and charging arm's length interest on the same.
The ITAT held that once the corporate guarantee given by the assessee for the benefit of its associated enterprise (AE) was invoked by the EXIM Bank, the transaction between the assessee and the EXIM Bank did not constitute an international transaction u/s 92B(2) of the Income Tax Act. The vital constituent of an international transaction is that it should be between associated enterprises. After the surety (assessee) paid the guaranteed debt, it was subrogated to the rights of the creditor (EXIM Bank) against the principal debtor (AE). However, this subrogation did not create a new debt in the books of the guarantor. Therefore, the tax authorities erred in treating the invoked guarantee as a loan to the AE and charging arm's length interest on the same.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
