<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>ITAT says corporate guarantee to AE is not a financial service by assessee. No profit shifting or burden. Interest adjustment on AEs&#039; receivables unjustified.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78674</link>
    <description>The ITAT addressed two main issues: 1. TP Adjustment for corporate guarantee to AE: As the assessee did not provide guarantees to unrelated parties, it was not a financial service. The low profit rate of AE and adequate security indicated no profit shifting. Citing PCIT Vs Redington, the adjustment was deleted as it did not affect the assessee&#039;s finances. 2. Addition of interest on overdue receivables from AEs: TPO applied a 60-day credit policy, contrary to the assessee&#039;s 180-day policy in line with RBI guidelines. Following GSS Infotech Ltd, interest was not charged to AEs or non-AEs, so adding notional interest was unjustified. Referring to CIT Vs Indo American Jewellery Ltd, the interest adjustment was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:10:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:10:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>ITAT says corporate guarantee to AE is not a financial service by assessee. No profit shifting or burden. Interest adjustment on AEs&#039; receivables unjustified.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78674</link>
      <description>The ITAT addressed two main issues: 1. TP Adjustment for corporate guarantee to AE: As the assessee did not provide guarantees to unrelated parties, it was not a financial service. The low profit rate of AE and adequate security indicated no profit shifting. Citing PCIT Vs Redington, the adjustment was deleted as it did not affect the assessee&#039;s finances. 2. Addition of interest on overdue receivables from AEs: TPO applied a 60-day credit policy, contrary to the assessee&#039;s 180-day policy in line with RBI guidelines. Following GSS Infotech Ltd, interest was not charged to AEs or non-AEs, so adding notional interest was unjustified. Referring to CIT Vs Indo American Jewellery Ltd, the interest adjustment was deleted.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 14:10:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>