https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313905 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313905 TP Adjustment - transaction of corporate guarantee constitute international transaction or not? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of order passed by CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has held that transaction of granting corporate/performance guarantee constitutes an international transaction keeping in view Explanation (i)(c) to Section 92B of the Act (inserted with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 by Finance Act 2012), whereby guarantee has been specifically included in the definition of international transaction as defined in Section 92B of the Act. The view taken by the CIT(A) is supported by decision of the Tribunal in Assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2012-13 [ 2020 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI] . Accordingly, we hold that the transaction of giving guarantee is international transaction requiring determination of ALP and transfer pricing adjustment. Upward transfer pricing adjustment - Assessee had advanced sum without charging any interest - advance given by the Assessee were akin to loan - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) deleted the addition by placing reliance of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-13 [ 2020 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein as held that the advances were towards fulfilment of the assessee s obligation of being a JV partner as any financial incapacitation of JV would adversely affect the continuation of the project and ultimately jeopardize the interest of the assessee. Therefore, the said advances could not be put in the category of loans as done by the lower authorities. Further, it could not be said that JV entity derived / gained certain benefits out of such advances but rather it was the assessee who would ultimately gain by continuing with the projects and taste the fruits of the success of project. Hence, not convinced with impugned adjustments as confirmed by first appellate authority, we direct Ld. AO to delete the same - Decided against revenue. TP adjustment pertaining to different Performance Guarantees - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal for the preceding assessment years for the same performance guarantees as held performance guarantees were given by the Bank of India, Mumbai Branch in favour of CCWE, a customer of Assessee s AE (i.e. KEC Global FZ LLC), and Bank of India, had charged guarantee commission of 0.93% per annum in respect of the same which was recovered by the Assessee from the AE. For Assessment Year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the Tribunal has accepted the aforesaid rate of 0.93% as arm s length rate of guarantee fee. Thus, facts and circumstances being identical, we dismiss Ground No.2(i) to (ix) raised by the Revenue. Arm s length rate of guarantee fee for corporate guarantees at 2% - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the order passed by TPO shows that the TPO had determined arm s length guarantee fee at the rate of 2% by way of estimation. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the Learned Authorised Representative for Assessee that the corporate guarantee was given for working capital loan facility granted to the AE in which the Assessee was 50% partner, and therefore, there was no default risk. Further, repayment of loan was secured by way of charge against the receivables from Saudi Electric Company, a Government Undertaking and a client of the Assessee s AE and therefore, the Assessee had only provided secondary security. The aforesaid submission, at best, supports the view taken by the CIT(A) to adopt the lower rate of 0.6% proposed to be charged by the bank of the Assessee as the arm s length rate for corporate guarantee fee instead of 2% determined by the TPO/Assessing Officer. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No. 3(ii) (iii) raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Unrealized foreign exchange loss arising from foreign exchange contracts - HELD THAT:- As relying on the Assessment Year 2009-10 to 2012-13 in assessee own case [ 2019 (9) TMI 437 - ITAT MUMBAI] , [ 2021 (5) TMI 816 - ITAT MUMBAI] , [ 2020 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that MTM losses on hedging contracts would be accrued losses and hence, an allowable expenditure. Deduction for education cess as well as higher secondary education cess - HELD THAT:- Both sides agreed that this issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgment passed by Chambal Fertilizers Chemicals Limited [ 2022 (12) TMI 1098 - SC ORDER] wherein it has been held that as per Explanation 3 to provision of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2022 (with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005) surcharge or cess forms a part of tax and therefore, deduction for the same cannot be allowed under Section 37. Aggregation of Corporate guarantees - HELD THAT:- As we have accepted Assessee s contention that 0.60% be accepted as arm s length rate of corporate guarantee fee. Accordingly, given the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the alternative contention of the Assessee and direct the TPO/Assessing Officer to recomputed the transfer pricing adjustment by taking rate of 0.6% as arm s length rate for corporate guarantee fee for all corporate guarantee given by the Assessee, (except for the corporate guarantees aggregating to USD 8,03,00,000/- given on behalf of wholly owned subsidiaries KEC Transmission LLC and KEC US LLC, USA in which case arm s length corporate guarantee fee shall be determined by adopting rate of 0.02%). Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530