TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the following 11 questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in directing to delete the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J in respect of 'Carriage Fees/ Channel Placement Fees' and failing to appreciate that the payments made for use/right to use of 'process' are 'royalty' as per Explanation 6 to section 9(1)(vi) hence such payments are covered u/s. 194J of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in directing to delete the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194J of Carriage Fees/ Channel Placement Fees, whereas the jurisdictional ITAT, Mumbai 'L'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has erred in holding that the rate of 0.5% is appropriate for charging commission to provide corporate guarantee to its associate enterprises as against the rate of 3% determined by the TPO? (f) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the ITAT erred in directing to restrict the charging of commission for corporate guarantee at 0.5% instead of 3% adopted by the AO/TPO, relying on the decision of ITAT in the case of Everest Kanto, without discussing & appreciating the facts brought on record by TPO and without appreciating that country, currency, etc., of the AE are different? (g) Whether on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in directing to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) failing to appreciate that the AO had given detailed reasoning in the assessment order for rejecting the working of disallowance u/s. 14A of the assessee and computing the disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii)? 3. We will deal with each of the questions separately. On going through the aforesaid questions, we find that questions (c) & (d) are squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-16, Mumbai V/S Media Worldwide Limited, Mumbai [Income Tax Appeal No.19 of 2020 decided on 24th April 2026]. In fact questions (c) & (d) as projected above ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified. However, if the Assessee Company is issuing a corporate guarantee to the effect that if the subsidiary AE does not repay the loan availed of, then in such event, the Assessee would repay the loan, the consideration for issuance of such a guarantee are separate and distinct from that of a bank guarantee. Ultimately the Court held that 0.5% is appropriate for charging commission to provide a corporate guarantee for discharging the loans of its associated enterprises as against the rate of 3% determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer. In these circumstances, we find that questions (e) to (i) are also squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Everest Kento Cylinders (supra) and hence do not gives rise to any substantial question....