TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1560/Mum/2015 has raised following grounds of appeal; 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble DRP is justified in deleting the adjustment made on account of adjustment of notional interest on the difference in price at which investment was made in equity shares of Associated Enterprise and price arrived on application of NAV method following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. in Writ Petition No. 871 of 2014? 2. The assessee in its cross appeal for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 1664/Mum/2015 has raised following grounds of appeal;- 1.0 Re: Adjustment of Rs. 2,70,65,250/- as regards provision of guarantee: 1.1 The learned Assessing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel/ Transfer Pricing Officer have erred in making an upward adjustment of Rs. 2,70,65,250/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that transaction of provision of guarantee by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise ("AE") is not at arm's length. 1.2. The learned Assessing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel/Transfer Pricing Officer erred in not appreciating that, considering the facts and circumstances of its case, provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment proceedings. 3.3. The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to allow the TDS credit of Rs. 60,259,755/- and to re-compute its tax liability accordingly. 4.0 Error in computing the tax payable under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) to the extent of Rs. 39,930,634/- 4.1 The learned Assessing Officer has erred in computing the tax payable at 18% instead of 15% on the book profit under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT). 4.2 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to recompute the tax payable at 15% instead of 18% on the book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in Business of providing web enabled customer care services, business process outsources services, and information technology enabled services (ITes). The assessee-company filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2010- 11 on 05.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nill after claiming deduction under section 10A. Along with the return of income, the assessee furnished report under Form 3CEB, reporting certain international transaction with its associated enterprises (AEs). The case was select....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count of corporate and performance guarantee. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that provision of corporate guarantee does not lead to any income generation for the assessee and does not fall within the ambit of section 92C of the Act. The determination of guarantee fee of 1.25% p.a. is arbitrary and incorrect. The Tribunal in various decision held that guarantee is not an international transaction. 7. In alternative submissions the ld. AR for the assessee submits that the DRP confirmed the action of TPO by following the order of their predecessor for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. In appeal for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the Tribunal in ITA No. 483/Mum/2013 and 1808/Mum/2014 dated 16th June 2020, by following the decision of Bombay High Court in Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bombay), restricted the guarantee commission fee @0.5%. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is covered by the decision of Tribunal for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10. 8. So far as performance guarantee is concerned the ld. AR for the assessee submits that in AY 2008-09 & 2009-10, the assessee has not argued against charging the performance guarantee due to smallness of the amount. The ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcial banks issue bank guarantees, the same is quite distinct in character than the situation where a corporate issues guarantee to the effect that, if a subsidiary associated enterprise does not repay a loan, the same would be made good by such corporate. Keeping the aforesaid ratio of the Bombay High Court, it is quite clear that the manner in which the Transfer Pricing Officer has proceeded to determine the arm's length rate based on the probable rate being charged by the commercial banks is not justified. In this view of the matter, three per cent rate of guarantee commission fee determined as arm's length rate by the income-tax authorities cannot be approved, though the ld. DRP in its direction has already restricted it to 1.5%. In the alternative, the addition that is required to be sustained is the position canvassed by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer i.e. adoption of 0.50 per cent as arm's length rate for the purpose of determining the arm's length income on account of guarantee commission fee in the instant case. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material available on record, the rate of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st of borrowing i.e. State bank of India (SBI) rate + 3% markup resulting in to a total rate of 9% for all the loans. While making adjustment the TPO followed the order of DRP for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The DRP affirmed the action by following the order of their predecessor for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee had correctly charged and benchmarked interest received on loans advanced to AEs at LIBOR plus 2%. The ld AR for the assessee submits that rate of interest on loans advanced to foreign company should be computed based on the market determined interest rate applicable to currency and the country in which loan is to be repaid and hence rate of SBI fixed deposit rate cannot be applied for the purpose of benchmarking. The ld AR for the assessee also relied on the following case laws; * CIT Vs Cotton Naturals (P) Ltd [2015] 55 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi), * Ion Exchange (I) Ltd (ITA No. 5109/Mum/2013) * Hinduja Global Solution Ltd (2013) taxmann.com 348 (Mum Tri), * Aurinpro Solution Ltd [2013] 33taxmann.com 187(Mum Trib), * Tata Autocomp System Ltd ( ITA No. 7354/Mum/2011) 14. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue suppor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of appeal is partly allowed. 17. Ground No. 3 relates to short deduction of TDS of Rs. 168,01,746/- The ld AR for the assessee submits that while filing return of income the assessee claimed tax credit of Rs. 6,02,59,755/-. The AO while passing the assessment order and computing tax liability granted credit to the extent of Rs. 4,3458,009/-, without assigning any reasons. The ld AR for the assessee prayed for passing appropriate direction to the AO. 18. The ld. DR for the revenue fairly submits that this issue may be restored to AO to verify the facts and to grant the appropriate credit of tax to the assessee. 19. Considering the submissions of the ld. representative of the parties the AO is directed to verify the fact and grant appropriate relief to the assessee. Needless to direct that at the time of verification of TDS credit the AO shall grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the result this ground of appeal is also allowed for statistical purpose. 20. Ground No. 4 relates to error in computing the tax payable in terms of Section 115JB. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the AO computed the tax liability in terms of section 115 JB by applying Minimum Altern....