AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No. 2234/M/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Revenue Appeal) "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) right in restricting the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act to Rs. 10,00,000/- giving relief of Rs. 7,27,78,541/- contrary to CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 which clearly states that it is not necessary to earn exempt income in a particular year in which the disallowance is made? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in relying on the judgment of decision of Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investments by holding that the disallowance made u/r. BD cannot be adopted while computing book profit u/s 115JB and held that the assessee has incurred expenses for earning of exempt income, hence, directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the amount suo-moto disallowance by the assessee? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 19,81,00,000/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that interest bearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in restricting the adjustment on account of issuing letter of comfort to 0.2% of the net asset value of subsidiary, without appreciating the fact that such letter has enabled the AE to obtain loans at a lesser interest rate and profit arising from such transaction should have been shared between the assessee and its AE? (x) The appellant prays that for this and other reasons it is submitted that order of CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. (xi) The appellant craves leave to amend, alter, delete or add grounds which may be necessary." ITA No. 2026/M/2021 (Assessee's Appeal) "1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred, both in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in sustaining an upward adjustment to the extent of Rs. 5,63,45,472/-towards nonrecovery of guarantee commission from Associated Enterprises ('AEs') in relation to issuance of Letter of Comfort ('LOC'), performance guarantee and financial guarantee considering the same as International transaction. 1.2 The learned Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of LOC/performance guarantee/financial guarantee provided by the appellant company to its AEs can be said to be one of quasi-equity or shareholder activity, and it is in best interest of both AEs and the appellant to provide such LOC/performance/financial guarantee. 1.7 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disregarding the Safe Harbour rules issued by CBDT which states that LOC and performance guarantee is not equivalent to corporate guarantee. 1.8 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in disregarding the definition of 'Corporate Guarantee' at Rule 10TA(c) as meaning an 'explicit corporate guarantee' extended by a Company to its wholly owned subsidiary and the explanation to the Rule which excludes a 'Letter of Comfort' or an 'implicit corporate guarantee' from the definition of 'Corporate Guarantee'. 1.9 The appellant prays that the adjustment made in respect of nonrecovery of commission from AEs on issue of LOC, performance guarantee and financial guarantee be deleted." 2. The cross-objection no. 53 filed by the assessee are as under: "A. Disallowance of expen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urposes without appreciating the fact that the Respondent has sufficient interest free funds, which has been used for giving advances towards acquisition of land: 6. ought to have appreciated that Hon'ble Tribunal in the respondent's own case for earlier years has deleted the disallowance towards notional interest on loans advanced for acquisition of land and thus taking different view from that which is settled in earlier years without change in facts and circumstances is not allowed in view of the principle of Consistency 7 erred in not appreciating the fact that advances given towards acquisition of land are in the course of regular business activities and thereby, there would not be any notional disallowance of interest expenditure." Ground No. 1 of Revenue: Disallowance made u/s 14A and crossobjection no. 1 to 3 of the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 224,26,68,823/- as exempt u/s 10 of the I.T. Act. The AO further noticed that assessee had made suo-moto disallowance of expenditure to the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for earning the said exempt income. However, the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the ITAT on similar facts and circumstances for A.Y. 2008-09 vide ITA 4418/M/2018 has restricted the disallowance of administrative expenditure to the extent of Rs. 10 lakh u/s 14A of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee has also submitted that after considering the nature of expenditure it had determined the expenditure related to earning exempt income. However, on perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that assessing officer has not recorded any specific dissatisfaction in respect of accounts of the assessee company for the direct and indirect expenses before computing the disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rule. Looking to the above facts, the ld. CIT(A) has arrived at the conclusion that assessing officer has failed to record dissatisfaction with respect to the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee after considering the various decisions of the courts. The ld. CIT(A) has also considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) wherein held that the assessing officer was not empowered to invoke the provisions contained u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the said advances were in the nature of regular business advance. Similarly during this year also, the assessing officer has made disallowance of interest expenses to the amount of Rs. 19,81,00,000/-. 10. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted such disallowance of interest expenditure after following the decisions of the ITAT on this recurring issue. 11. Before us, the ld. DR supported the order of the assessing officer. On the other hand, ld. Counsel relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 and also submitted that assessee has not debited any amount in the P & L A/c and same has been shown as work-in-progress under the head current asset in the balance sheet. 12. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee is in the business of construction and real estate business. It is undisputed fact that assessee has not debited any interest expenditure in the P&L A/c and shown the whole amount as advances towards acquisition of land in the balance sheet. We find that this is recurring issue which has been decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2014- 15 and earlier years. It is also un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s summarized as under: Bank Name Rate SBI 2.10% UTI 0.75% (1/4 of 3%) CITI 2.125% (2+2.25/2) Average 1.66% 14. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto made downward adjustment of 0.50% to the adjustment recommended by the TPO and computed arm's length rate for guarantee fees at 1.16% after following the similar decision of his predecessor for A.Y. 2014-15 as reproduced as under: "I have carefully considered the matter. During the financial year relevant to the assessment year in question, the Appellant Assessee had given corporate guarantee to the Banks for loan given in foreign currency to its AE. The Appellant has raised various contentions, summarized as below: a) Corporate guarantee is in the nature of shareholders' activities which does not justify a charge b) Corporate guarantee does not have "bearing on profits, income, losses or assets" and thus, not an international transaction; c) Corporate Guarantee is not in the nature of 'provision of services'; d) Without prejudice to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission to be restricted to 0.5% based on decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. The assessee also referred various decisions of ITAT wherein after following the decisions of Hon'ble High Court/Tribunal, the guarantee commission was restricted to 0.5%. The assessee also submitted in its alternative claim that Mumbai ITAT in assessee's own case for F.Y. 2014-15 has remanded the matter back to the file of the TPO for the purpose of applying any of the prescribed method for determining the ALP. 16. On the other hand, ld. DR objected the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The ld. DR also submitted that since there was no internal CUP available in the case of the assessee, therefore, the TPO has rightly applied external CUP method to determine the commission for the bank guarantee extended by the assessee for the purpose of associated enterprises. 17. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) has restricted the rate of corporate guarantee to 0.5% or actual cost incurred by the assessee + 10% mark up after following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Everest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that assessee provide performance guarantee to Qatar Petroleum on behalf of its associate enterprises guaranteeing the performance of duties and obligation that would be done by its AE and in the event of any such failure of performance by the AE, the assessee shall on written request of Qatar Petroleum perform the unfulfilled obligations and shall receive all the rights and benefits to it. The assessee claimed that while providing such performance guarantee it did not incur any charges or cost whatsoever and accordingly no commission was charged by the assessee to its AE for providing said performance guarantee. In support, the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT in the case of KEC International (ITA No. 6447/Mum/2015 dated 23rd March, 2011). 21. The ld. DR supported the order of TPO. 22. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee provided performance guarantees to Qatar Petroleum on behalf of the AE. Under the performance guarantee if associated enterprise fails to execute a contract then the performance guarantee issued by the assessee get invoked then the assessee would be obliged to execute the contract on its own by using i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tified in not charging any commission from its AE in the subject mentioned performance guarantee transaction. Hence, there is no need to make any adjustment to arms length price thereof. In view of this decision in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the issue as to whether issuance of performance guarantee would fall within the ambit of an international transaction or not is left open and no decision is given herein. Hence, the various decisions quoted by the Id. Counsel for both the sides need not be gone into. Accordingly, the addition made in the sum of Rs. 69,45,342/- is hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the ground No.1(a) raised by the revenue are partly allowed." 24. We have also perused the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 1135 & 1357/M/2014 the relevant extract is as under: "15...... Here, in this case what has to be seen that the entire functions to carry out the work either in the form of sub-contract or executing the contract work by providing entire support services through its own infrastructure, man power, management, technological support, organizational support, etc. all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erage bank guarantee rate of 1.66%. Further, based on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto and Mumbai ITAT in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. made downward adjustment of 0.50% to the aforesaid average bank guarantee rate and computed the arm's length guarantee fees rate at 1.16% and the adjustment was made to the amount of Rs. 5,34,87,269/-. 27. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. has restricted guarantee commission @ 0.2% to the amount of Rs. 27,80,525/-. 28. The ld. DR supported the order of TPO. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel submitted that issue of letter of comfort did not have bearing on the profit, income or assets of the assessee, therefore, the same is not an international transaction and do not attract provisions of section 92 of the Act. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate benches of the ITAT where it is held that letter of comfort is not an international transaction. 29. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. 30. The assessee has issued letter of comfort to ICICI Bank Bahrain ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and there is no financial implication of the assessee. On the similar proposition, the assessee has also referred the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs Addl. CIT vide ITA No. 371/Mum/2010 & Others). Looking to the above facts and findings, we consider that nowhere the TPO and the ld. CIT(A) establish that letter of comfort create any contractual financial obligation on the assessee company for only providing letter of comfort for keeping the investment in its holding company. Therefore, following the findings of the ITAT in the decisions as referred supra, the addition of Rs. 27,80,525/- is deleted. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of Revenue are dismissed and grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Ground No. 2 of Revenue and Cross Objection No. 4 to 6 of the assessee: Adjustment of book profit u/s 115JB in relation to expenditure relatable to earning exempt income u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the amount of Rs. 7,37,78,541/: 32. The assessee while computing the book profit in terms of section 115JB of the Act had suo moto made addition u/s 115JB(2) of the Act of an amount of Rs. 40,32,630/- towards administrative cost and interest cos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appeal vide ITA No. 2232/M/2021 and Cross Objection No. of 54/M/2022 as supra grounds of Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed. Ground No. 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 to 1.9 of the Assessee appeal and Ground No. 4 to 5 of the Revenue relating to Financial Guarantee Adjustment of Rs. 150,08,067/-: 38. Applying the findings of the ITA No. 2232/M/2021 (Revenue) and ITA No. 2027/M/2021 (Assessee) on the similar issue as adjudicated above mutatis and mutandis both the grounds of appeal of the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose. Ground No. 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.9 of assessee appeal and Ground No. 4 t 7 of Revenue appeal related to performance guarantee in an adjustment of Rs. 4,27,68,565/-: 39. The similar grounds of appeal have been adjudicated vide ITA No. 2232/M/2021 and ITA No. 2027/M/2021. Applying the same findings mutatis mutandis, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. Ground No. 1.1 to 1.3 and 1.5 to 1.9 of Assessee's appeal and Ground No. 8 and 9 of Revenue appeal relating to Letter of Comfort resulting in adjustment of Rs. 44,69,215/-: 40. Since similar issue o....