Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.02 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltu vs M/S Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. on 28 October, 2020

Tvs Motor Company Ltd.,Chennai vs Acit, Chennai on 24 January, 2025

AS 10.9 We find that the decision in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Departmental Representative is of no assistance to the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme e Court therein stated the principle of law that where any profit or loss arises to an assessee on account of depreciation in foreign currency held by him on conversion from another currency, such profit and loss would ordinary be trading loss if the foreign foreign currency held by the assessee on revenue account as trading asset or as a part of circulating capital embargo in business. However, if the foreign currency is held as a capital asset, the loss should be capital in nature. The aforesaid principle of law is required to be applied to the facts of case to determine whether the foreign currency is held by the assessee on revenue account or as a part of circulating capital. In the present case, fluctuation loss inflicted upon the assessee bears no nexus or relation relation to the acquisition to the assets. The action of the assessee is tied up to its underlying objective i.e. saving in interest costs, hedging its revenue receipts etc. which are undoubtedly on revenue account. Thus, the loss generated in impugned action bears the character of revenue expenditure. Similarly, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel co. (supra) also weighs in favour of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acqueon Technologies Private Limited ... vs Ito , Ndac , Delhi on 19 May, 2023

No: 60/Chny/2022 considered an identical transaction and held that 0.5% is appropriate rate for bench marking corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. (supra), we direct the TPO to benchmark corporate guarantee fees @ 0.5% on total corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S Ocl India Ltd.,, New Delhi on 24 April, 2026

35.2. We find that the ld CIT(A) had followed the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Canto Cylinder Ltd referred supra wherein the ALP of corporate guarantee had been determined at 0.5% of value of guarantee and hence, we do not find any infirmity in the said order. However, the other arguments of the assessee that furnishing of corporate guarantee per se is not an international transaction and is merely only a shareholder's activity not warranting any recovery of fees from the AEs had to be decided against the assessee as it is impliedly an international transaction and need to be benchmarked separately. It is well settled that as per the jurisprudence of the Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, the assessee would not have extended the corporate guarantee to a third party in similar circumstances. Hence, issuance of corporate guarantee had to be construed as a separate international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act and need to be benchmarked separately by determining the Arm's Length Price thereon. Hence, the contentions of the assessee are hereby dismissed and we hold that the ld CIT(A) had rightly directed the benchmarking of corporate guarantee @0.5% as ALP. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 3 to 6 are partly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ocl India Ltd.,New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 24 April, 2026

35.2. We find that the ld CIT(A) had followed the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Canto Cylinder Ltd referred supra wherein the ALP of corporate guarantee had been determined at 0.5% of value of guarantee and hence, we do not find any infirmity in the said order. However, the other arguments of the assessee that furnishing of corporate guarantee per se is not an international transaction and is merely only a shareholder's activity not warranting any recovery of fees from the AEs had to be decided against the assessee as it is impliedly an international transaction and need to be benchmarked separately. It is well settled that as per the jurisprudence of the Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, the assessee would not have extended the corporate guarantee to a third party in similar circumstances. Hence, issuance of corporate guarantee had to be construed as a separate international transaction within the meaning of Section 92B of the Act and need to be benchmarked separately by determining the Arm's Length Price thereon. Hence, the contentions of the assessee are hereby dismissed and we hold that the ld CIT(A) had rightly directed the benchmarking of corporate guarantee @0.5% as ALP. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 3 to 6 are partly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acqueon Technologies Pirvate ... vs Ito, Corporate Cirlce 1(1), Chennai on 30 May, 2025

had considered an identical transaction and held that 0.5% is appropriate rate for bench marking corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. (supra), we direct the TPO to benchmark corporate guarantee fees @ 0.5% on total corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acqueon Technologies Pvt. ... vs Dcit, Corporate Circle-1., Chennai on 30 May, 2025

had considered an identical transaction and held that 0.5% is appropriate rate for bench marking corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also by following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. (supra), we direct the TPO to benchmark corporate guarantee fees @ 0.5% on total corporate guarantee given by the assessee to its AE."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Bahwan Cybertek Pvt Ltd, Chennai on 21 November, 2025

In this view of the matter, by applying the ratio laid down in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. (supra) and by following the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Mega Soft Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra), we concur with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in holding Corporate guarantee as a separate international transaction and adopting 0.5% as appropriate for the purpose of computing the arm's length price of corporate guarantee. It is ordered accordingly. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence no interference called for. As a result, Ground No.iv raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Precision Camshafts Limited,Pune vs Dcit Circle 1, Solapur on 12 November, 2025

4.6 In the Transfer Pricing Order the TPO has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd., in ITA no 1165 of 2013. We have studied the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and it is distinguishable on facts. The relevant paragraphs of Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order are reproduced here as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata, ... on 8 April, 2024

10. Now, so far as the Ground relating to calculation of corporate guarantee fee is concerned, we find that this issue has come up before various judicial forums and corporate guarantee fee range of 0.2% to 0.5% has been found to be justified. We find support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders reported in (2015) 378 ITR 57 (Bom), and are inclined to give part relief to the assessee directing the TPO to compute corporate guarantee fee @ 0.5% and delete excess amount added in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are partly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tata Consumer Products Limited, ... vs Dcit, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata on 17 September, 2024

5.4 In another case, the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT vs Rolta India Ltd. (101 taxmann.com 40) had taken a similar view in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in IL & FS Technology Limited the case of CIT vs Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. and held that guarantee issued on behalf of AE subsidiary is an international transaction however no comparison can be made between guarantee issued by a commercial bank and a corporate guarantee is- sued by an entity on behalf of its AE subsidiary company while benchmarking the ALP transaction.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next