AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
