TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A)] qua the assessment years 200910, 2010-11 & 2013-14 respectively on the grounds inter alia that: Revenue's grounds of appeal ITA No.928/M/2020 for A.Y. 2009-10 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income while CBDT circular no. 5/2014 dtd 11.02.2014 clearly specifies that even if no exempt income is earned on the investments for the purpose of calculation of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, these are to be included. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that from A.Y. 2008-09, the disallowance u/s. 14A is required to be computed as per rule 8D as held by the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce and the method adopted by the assessee is not a valid method. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee relying on the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality as the Hon'ble Delhi Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid shareholder deposit? 3.4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010-11 & 2012-13 in assuming the permission given by the RBI to treat the arrears of technical fees receivable by the assessee as the shareholder deposit as a statutory bar on charging interest at arm's length on the said deposit under specific anti-avoidance provisions of Chapter X? 3.5 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010-11 & 2012-13 which in turn relies on RBI approval ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Punjab &, Haryana High Court in Coco cola case (309 ITR 194) wherein it has been held that the Income tax Authorities are not bound by the RBI for determining ALP? 3.6 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010- 11 & 2012-13 in stating that the shareholder deposit is not the international transaction of the impugned assessment year, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sition of law have not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble ITAT? 4.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CJT(A) is justified in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A. Y 2010-1 1 and A.Y. 2012-13 in holding that, the outstanding balances with Associated Enterprise-is outside the ambit of International Transaction, despite the existence of Explanation (c) to section 92B of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 and consequently deleting the adjustment made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act on account of interest on such outstanding balances amounting to Ks.51,13,361/-? 4.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in following the ITAT decision in assessee's own case for A.Y 2010-11 & 2012-13 in relying on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of UCO Bank (supra) in deleting the interest charged on the receivables when the facts are completely distinguishable? 4.3 Whether on the fresh facts and circumstances of the case and position of law brought in above relating to the impugned AY 200910, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest thereon on hypothetical basis does not arise despite the fact that, assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the very foundation of special provisions relating to avoidance of tax contained in chapter X of Income Tax Act, 1961 as introduced by Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 lies on computation of income from international transaction having regard to Arm's Length Price which is hypothetical and not real income and consequently deleting the adjustment made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act on account of Charging of interest on shareholder deposits placed with the assessee's Associate Enterprises amounting to Rs.1,86,09,281/-? 3.2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the interest charged on the deposit on accrual basis as it is mandatory on the part of the companies to account only on mercantile basis as per Companies Act read with section 145 of the Income tax Act, more so when there is a provision to write off in the Act, if the interest could not be recovered conclusively at any later point of time? 3.3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating the facts that royalty on technical knowhow accrued to the assessee long back from the AE at Indonesia has not been received and left in Indonesia itself with the AE as shareholder deposit lead to base erosion in India which needs to be set right by transfer pricing provisions charging arm's length interest on the same? 4.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that, when the financial position of Associated Enterprise is weak or bad non-recognition of income on account of Technical fees receivable from AE as per the agreement for the F Y 2011- 12 on accrual basis is lawful despite the fact that, assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the very foundation of special provisions relating to avoidance of tax contained in chapter X of Income Tax Act, 1961 as introduced by Finance Act 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2002 lies on computation of income from international transaction having regard to Arm's Lengths Price which is hypothetical and not real income and consequently deleting the adjustment made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act on account o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39; as capital receipt' whereas there is no obligation casted upon the assessee to apply the subsidy for any particular purpose? 7. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." ITA No.2779/M/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 wherein it is held that, when recovery of principal is doubtful, the question of charging of interest thereon on hypothetical basis does not arise despite the fact that, assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the very foundation of special provisions relating to avoidance of tax contained in chapter X of Income Tax Act, 1961 as introduced by Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 01.04.2002 lies on computation of income from international transaction having regard to Arm's Length Price which is hypothetical and not real income and consequently deleting the adjustment made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act on account of Charging of interest on shareholder deposits placed with the assessee's Associate Enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Autocomp Systems Ltd and jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Aurinpro Solution Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 187 have clearly held that AO/TPO can compute ALP in case of interest free loan to subsidiary? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that, when the financial position of Associated Enterprise is weak or bad non-recognition of income on account of Technical fees receivable from AE as per the agreement for the F Y 2011- 12 on accrual basis is lawful despite the fact that, assessee is following mercantile system of accounting and the very foundation of special provisions relating to avoidance of tax contained in chapter X of Income Tax Act, 1961 as introduced by Finance Act 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2002 lies on computation of income from international transaction having regard to Arm's Lengths Price which is hypothetical and not real income and consequently deleting the adjustment made u/s.92CA(3) of the Act on account of Technical fees receivable from AE as .per the agreement for the F Y 2011-12 amounting to Rs. 1,22,32,000/-? 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and the decision is not squarely applicable to this case. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred m allowing relief to the assessee relying on the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., without appreciating the facts that the issue has not reached to its finality as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Goetz India Ltd.3 repotted in 361 ITR 505 held that while computing Book Profit disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made. However, in its later judgment the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (ITA No. 593 & 594/2015) has taken a contrary view. 16. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored." Assessee's grounds of appeal ITA No.335/M/2020 for A.Y. 2009-10 "I.GROUND 1 - TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK INVOLVED IN GIVING GUARANTEE ON LOAN ADVANCED TO ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in disregarding the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant based on the percentage completion method on land converted into stock-in-trade at Rs.1,66,88,61,759/- instead of Rs.1,58,10,39,854/- as offered by the Appellant. 2. The Appellant therefore prays that the AO be directed to take fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as supported by valuation report submitted by the Appellant and delete the addition." ITA No.2741/M/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 GROUND NO. 1: TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF RISK INVOLVED IN GIVING CORPORATE GUARANTEE ON LOANS ADVANCED TO THE AE: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disregarding the binding decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in Appellant's own case for earlier year whereby the impugned transaction was held not to be falling within the purview of international transaction as defined u/s. 92B and thereafter directing the AO to make addition on account of risk involved in giving guarantee on loans advanced to the AE applying the rate of 0.5%. The Appellant prays that the impugned direction of the CIT(A) be deleted. GROUND NO. 2: ADDITION OF INCREMENTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF CONVERSION OF CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN-T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B." 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : assessee is into the business of manufacturing cum trading, specifically in textiles and Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) and Development of Real Estate. Draft order was passed in these cases which was served upon the assessee but no objections have been filed on behalf of the assessee and as such draft order is treated as final assessment order. Assessing Officer (AO) after making different additions/disallowances framed the assessment in all the aforesaid appeals under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has partly allowed the same vide orders dated 21.11.2019, 14.03.2019 & 22.02.2019 for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 respectively. Feeling aggrieved the assessee company as well as Revenue have come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present cross appeals. 5. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. 165 ITD 27 (SB). So Ground No.2 of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & ground No.14 of A.Y. 2013-14 are decided against the Revenue. Ground No.3 of A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 bearing ITA No.928/M/2010 & ITA No.3299/M/2019 and Ground Nos.1 to 7 of A.Y. 2013-14 bearing ITA Nos.2799/M/2019 10. Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/AO/CIT made transfer pricing adjustment qua interest on shareholders' deposit to the tune of Rs.1,78,18,044/-, 1,86,09,281/- & Rs.1,27,66,301/- for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 respectively on the ground that the assessee has taken risk by giving deposit to an international Associate Enterprise (AE) without taking any security and charged the interest @ 11.71% with additional amount of 1% to the rate of interest for not taking any security, to the amount of shareholders' deposit. 11. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the adjustment by following the decision of Tribunal passed in assessee's own case in ITA No.1716/M/2017 dated 27.10.2017. 12. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue challenging the impugned deletion of adjustment made by the TPO relied upon the order passed by TPO/AO and also relied upon by the decision rendered by Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse for charging interest till the year 2015 by which PTFSI is required to make payment to the company. There has been no inflow or outflow relating to the above deposit during the Previous Year 2011-12 and hence it is outside the purview of transfer pricing provisions. We are of the view that the assessee cannot be asked to do something which is impermissible in law and expenditure incurred in compliance of law or the direction of the statutory authorities, the same is allowable. This view is supported by the case law relied on by the assessee of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 474 (Bom.). Further, another aspect argued by the learned Counsel is that interest and principal amount itself is doubtful of recovery, the question of taxing hypothetical interest does not arise. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC). In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment can be made in relation to interest @ 8.39% amounting to Rs.1,27,66,301/- in relation to non-interest bearing sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... improbability of realisation in a realistic manner. If the matter was considered in this light it was not possible to hold that there was real accrual of income to the assessee company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity which were added by the AO while passing the assessment orders in respect of the assessment years under consideration. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, therefore, had rightly held that the claim at the increased rates as made by the assessee-company on the basis of which necessary entries were made represented only hypothetical income and the impugned amounts as brought to tax by the Assessing Officer did not represent the income which had really accrued to the assesseecompany during the relevant previous years. Taking the same principle, in the present case before us, we delete the addition made AO / TPO and confirmed by DRP on account of transfer pricing adjustment towards technical knowhow fees from its AE i.e. PTFSI. We direct the AO accordingly. This issue of assessee's appeal is allowed." 19. Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Godhra Electricit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o interest accrues to the Company based on business prudence, commercial expediency and exigency. 24. We find from records that the AO has treated the debit balance outstanding on the year end as an "International Transaction" and have made proposed addition of notional interest. Now the question arises whether outstanding debit balance with the associate company cannot be regarded as an 'International Transaction' within the meaning of section 92B of the Act. Further, Ld Counsel drew our attention to section 92B of the Act which defines the term "international transaction" used in section 92(1) of the Act as under:- "International transaction means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder passed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2012-13 (supra) which is on identical facts and has been decided in favour of the assessee by returning following findings: "28. We have gone through facts and circumstances of the case and noted the facts that the State Government of Maharashtra with a view to encourage the dispersal of industries to the less developed areas of the State of Maharashtra announced "The Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007" w.e.f. 01.04.2007. The PSI was applicable based on the level of Fixed Capital Investment or Employment Generation. Assessee Company is eligible for getting subsidy on account of investment made in new plant commenced at Patalganga and Ranjangaon. Further, in the context of subsidy, the question as to whether it is of 'revenue' or 'capital' in nature will have to be determined, having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. If it is given by way of assistance in carrying on the business, it has to be treated as a 'trading' receipt. The source of the fund is immaterial. If the purpose was to help in setting up a business or complete a project, it must be treated as having been received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) it is held that the excise duty refund, interest subsidy and insurance subsidy received under a State Scheme are of 'capital' in nature. In arriving at its decision, the High Court noted that the foregoing incentives were given to achieve dual objectives, viz. acceleration of industrial development and generation of employment in the State and that such incentives designed to achieve a public purpose, could not be construed as production or operational incentives for the benefit of the assessee alone. Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Rasoi Limited (2011) 335 ITR 438 (Cal), following the ratio of Supreme Court in Ponni Sugar (supra) has held that subsidy received from Government of West Bengal under scheme of industrial promotion for expansion of its capacities, modernization and improving its marketing capabilities would be 'capital' receipt. 30. Further, the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT') has issued Circular No. 142 dated 01-08-1974 wherein it has clarified that where the subsidy is primarily given for helping the growth of industries and not for supplementing their profits, such subsidy can be regarded as 'capital&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case for A.Y. 2012-13 deleted the addition made by the AO, which is under challenge before the Bench. 30. We have perused the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2012-13 which is on identical facts and issue and has been decided in favour of the assessee by returning following findings: "52. Facts are that one of the business segments of company is Real estate activity. Revenue is recognized on the 'Percentage of Completion Method' of accounting. This method of accounting has been consistently followed since F.Y. 2005-06. This method of accounting is as per Accounting Standard ('AS')-7/AS-9 read with Guidance Note on accounting for real estate activity issued by ICAI as applicable. Further the same method of accounting has been accepted in the past assessments as well as by other statutory authorities for e.g. Service Tax department, Sales Tax authorities. Under this method "revenue" is recognized during the period of construction as against "project completion method" where under revenue "sale of flats" is recognized when the possession of the flats is handed over to the purchasers. Under the Percentage Completion Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proportion of the project activity." The accounting policy followed in respect of real estate activity as disclosed in Notes to Financial Statements at (d) under Significant Accounting Policies, is as under: "(d) Revenue from real estate is recognized on the transfer of all significant risks and rewards of ownership to the buyers and it is not unreasonable to expect ultimate collection and no significant uncertainly exists regarding the amount of consideration. The freehold land under Real Estate Development planned for sale is converted from fixed assets into stock-in-trade at market value. The difference between the market value and cost of that part of freehold land is credited to revaluation reserve. Revenue arising on sale of undivided interest in the underlying freehold land pertaining to fiats / office premises, which are under construction, is being accounted on the percentage of completion method. Revenue from construction activity is recognized on the 'Percentage of Completion Method' of accounting. Revenue is recognized in relation to the sold areas only, on the basis of percentage of cost incurred as against the total cost of project (including land). Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion contained in sub section (2) of section 45, the capital gains shall be chargeable to income tax as income of the previous year in which such stock in trade is sold or otherwise transferred by him. Since the sale of Stock in Trade would actually happen when the flats are completed and ownership transferred, a strict interpretation of section 45(2) would suggest that the capital gains arising on conversion of stock in trade would be chargeable to tax when project is completed. However, it would be inconsistent to say that the business profits arising from real estate activity would be chargeable to tax on percentage completion method each year during the construction activity and the capital gains portion of there is chargeable to tax in a different year i.e. when the project is completed. A reading down of section 45(2) of the Act would therefore mean that the capital gains on conversion should be charge to tax in the same year in which the corresponding business income is offered to tax, on the same basis i.e. percentage completion method which the company is following. Further, the assessee has made disclosure by way of a note at serial no. 31 in Notes to Financial Statement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.4613/M/2016 & CO No.166/M/2018 of A.Y. 2010-11 in case of DCIT vs. M/s. Deegee Orchards Pvt. Ltd. date of order 08.08.2018. The Ld. CIT(A) decided this issue by following order passed by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Alok Industries Ltd. ITA No.1017/M/2017. So we find no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by Ld. CIT(A), hence ground No.14 of A.Y. 2013-14 is decided against the Revenue. Ground No.15 of A.Y. 2013-14 bearing ITA No.2799/M/2019 33. AO made disallowance of Rs.7,97,935/- made under section 14A read with rule 8D while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same. 34. When admittedly the assessee company has not earned any exempt income during the year under assessment no disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D is sustainable. In these circumstances when no disallowance is made under section 14A read with rule 8D, the same cannot be made for the purpose of computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Bengal Finance & Inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... off of the security deposits of Rs.21,57,000/- out of an amount of Rs.27,30,207/- claimed as written off by the assessee qua the security deposit paid by it. However, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue by referring the same back to the AO to verify whether the same were actually written off and if so allow the sum as deduction by returning following findings: "17. The fact of the case is examined. The sum is titled as "Provision". The submission does speak on "writing off1 or "written off' the debts due. Security Deposit forefeited is a deductible expenditure. Such a view is held in multitude of decisions including AT&T Communication Services India Limited vs ACIT(6016/Del/2015) dated 15.02.2018 in addition to case decisions relied upon by appellant. This covers Rs.21,57,000/-. 18. The Assessing Officer disallowed the sum holding it as capital asset. In instant case, the sum is eligible for deduction if it is actually written off. Whether it is written off or not needs verification. The Assessing Officer is directed to merely verify (other aspects as held by me in preceding para) whether the sums were actually written off and if so, allow the sum as a deduction. With this di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s claimed that similar issue had also arisen in the assessee's own case for AY 2006-07, wherein the DRP has deleted the said disallowance made by the AO on account of the counter guarantee charges and the relevant para of DRP order reads as under: - "In view of the submissions made by the assessee that counter indemnity charges have already been debited to PTFS, the very basis on which the TPO has made the adjustment appears to have gone. As the TPO had merely taken a benchmark of 3% while the assessee has debited the actual expenses, the adjustment made on this account is directed to be deleted." Further, in assessee' own case for AY 2007-08, this transaction was accepted at arm's length and no addition was made. Further in assessee' own case for AY 2008-09 addition was made by AO but deleted by CIT(A) on this ground. It was argued that the lower authorities observed that the assessee has assumed risk in providing the counter guarantee to bank for lending money to its subsidiary and for that it should have charged risk premium for assuming the risk by providing the counter guarantee. 15. It was argued that the transaction is not an international transaction per Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort to discharge this onus. Such an impact on profits, income, losses or assets has to be on real basis, even if in present or in future, and not on contingent. or hypothetical basis, and there has to be some material on record to indicate, even if not to establish it to hilt, that an intra AE international transaction has some impact on profits, income, losses or assets. Clearly, these conditions are not satisfied on the facts of this case. We have held that even after the amendment in Section 92 B'by amending Explanation to Section 92 B, a corporate guarantee issued for the benefit of the AEs, which does not involve any costs to the assessee, does not have any bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the enterprise and, therefore, it is outside the ambit of 'international transaction' to which ALP adjustment can be made. As we have decided the matter in favour of the assessee on this short issue, we see no need to address ourselves to other legal issues raised by the assessee and the judicial precedents cited before us. For the reasons set out above, and as we have held that the issuance of corporate guarantees in question did not constitute ' international....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ein it has been held that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure and having regard to the circumstances of the case. 19. Further we have also gone through the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Nimbus Communications Ltd. [2013] 145 ITD 582 (Mum-Trib.), wherein it was held as under: "For the guarantee given to the bank against the financial assistance given to its AEs, no commission was charged by the assessee company on the ground that the said AEs were not benefited by the guarantee so given and it was the assessee who benefited as a result of commercial benefits secured for future. In support of this stand of the assessee, the assessee has contended that business strategy should be taken into consideration while making any TP adjustments in respect of such transactions and has relied on the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines issued in 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt company itself, the transaction qua providing corporate guarantee is to be treated at arms length without any separate mark up. Moreover, as already decided by co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal the transaction as to providing corporate guarantee qua the loan availed of by the AE does not cover under the definition of international transactions as defined under section 92B of the Act. So we hereby set aside the order passed by the Ld. Lower Authorities and addition made by Ld. Lower Authorities on account of transfer pricing adjustment qua risk involved in giving guarantee on loan advance to the AE is ordered to be deleted. So ground No.1 of A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 is determined in favour of the assessee. Ground No.2 of A.Y. 2009-10 bearing ITA No.335/M/2020, Ground No.3 of A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 bearing ITA No.335/M/2020 & ITA No.2741/M/2019 respectivley & Ground No.4 of A.Y. 2010-11 bearing ITA No.2741/M/2019 43. Assessee company during the assessment proceedings vide letter dated 27.01.2012 requested to consider the subsidy amounts of Rs.27,43,53,333/- & Rs.18,62,51,866/- for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively received under package scheme of incentives from Government of Ma....