TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and trading of edible oils and agro-based products, filed its return of income on 30/11/2014 for the AY 2014-15. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return on 25/11/2015 admitting a total income of Rs. 9,06,97,982/-. The return was initially processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice U/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee and in response the assessee's Authorized Representatives appeared from time to time and furnished the details as called for by the Ld. AO. During the assessment proceedings, on examining the details furnished by the assessee-company, the Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justment in this regard. After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as on perusal of the information obtained from State Bank of India U/s. 133(6) on rates charged for corporate guarantee, the Ld. TPO proceeded to make the TP adjustment u/s. 92CA of the Act on corporate guarantee charges @ 1.60% on Rs. 61,10,82,000/- which worked out to Rs. 97,77,312/-. On appeal, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] upheld the decision of the Ld. TPO while making the TP adjustment. Thus, the Ld. AO giving effect to the directions of the Ld. DRP determined the ALP of corporate guarantee outstanding @ Rs. 97,77,312/- and added the same to the income returned by the assessee-company and passed the final assessment order on 31/7/2018 u/s 143(3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the grounds of appeal, though the assessee has raised four grounds, but the main issues involved are: (i) Whether the corporate guarantee given by the assesseecompany to its AEs for the loan taken by the AEs can be considered as an international transaction as per the provisions of section 92B of the Act or not? (ii) Whether the upward TP adjustment made by the Ld. TPO and confirmed by the Ld. DRP in the corporate guarantee commission on the gross guarantee given to AEs is justifiable or not? 5. On these issues, at the outset, the Ld. AR submitted and pleaded that the corporate guarantee given by the assesseecompany to its AEs is not an international transaction as the assessee has not charged the AE. The Ld. AR relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uarantee facility provided by Axis Bank the rate adopted was 0.4% and in case if the Bench decides to treat the corporate guarantee as an international transaction in the alternative the rate of 0.4% shall be considered. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the OECD guidelines corporate guarantee is not an international transaction and it is only a shareholders obligation. The Ld. AR further submitted that merely relying on the information obtained U/s. 133(6) of the Act which was not shared with the assessee, the Ld. TPO erred in determining the rate of 1.60% guarantee commission given to AEs. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. TPO and the Ld. DRP. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused he material....