Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
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 
