2021 (5) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....32 & 280/DRP-1/BNG/2016-17, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) r.w.s. 144C and 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']; respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. We now advert to the assessee's pleadings in both these assessment years. Its identical first grievance in A.Ys. 2012-13, ground Nos. 2 and 3 and 2, 4 and 5th substantive grounds in A.Y. 2013-14; challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities' action making Arm's Length Price (ALP) adjustments of Rs. 11,64,240/- and Rs. 31,85,162/- pertaining to corporate guarantees; assessment year-wise; respectively. 3. Learned counsel's first and foremost argument is that a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed similar corporate guarantee commission @1.3% only. 4.1. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that TPO's order has gone by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India's Government Guarantee Policy in September, 2010 and State Bank of India's rates than fining any independent comparable in the very segment. The fact also remains that we do not see any comparable coming from the assessee's side as well as its thrust all alone has been to contest the learned lower authorities' action treating such a corporate guarantee as an international transaction in above terms only. 4.2. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a lumpsum corporate guarantee commission of 0.9% in the given facts an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....#39;s case on the other hand in light of the DRP's directions in para 2.3 is that the panel has already directed the Assessing Officer to verify the corresponding claim. The Assessing Officer's consequential assessment dt. 30-01-2017 holds that such an additional claim could not be entertained in absence of a revised return as per hon'ble apex court's decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue's foregoing argument. Their lordships have made it clear in para 4 that the same only applies on the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction to entertain a new claim than impinging upon the appellate authorities' similar jurisdiction to allow the concerned parties to plead new ....