Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Finance Act, 2012
Section 92 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Everest Kanto Investment & Finance Ltd, ... vs Dcit 8(1), Mumbai on 4 December, 2017
The aforesaid reasoning / conclusion would also make the
cited case laws of Ld. AR inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
7.11 Coming to the benchmarking rate of 2% as adopted by Ld. TPO,
the same do not convince us since a pertinent fact to be noted that both
the AEs were subsidiaries of the assessee which were special purpose
22
ITA Nos.17 & 115/Mum/2018
KEC International Limited
Assessment Year :2012-13
vehicle to enable certain acquisition on behalf of the assessee and the
assessee would be the ultimate beneficiary of such acquisition.
Therefore, the assessee's risk in such a case would be very low since
both the AEs were assessee's subsidiaries only. Therefore, considering
the fact that it was a corporate guarantee for which no fees was paid by
the assessee and going by the ratio of the decision of coordinate bench
of the Tribunal in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. Vs. DCIT [34
Taxmann.com 19] as affirmed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court on
08/05/2015 [58 Taxmann.com 254], we estimate the TP adjustments
against both these transactions @0.20%. The Ld. TPO / Ld. AO is
directed to recompute the same in terms of our above order. The
grounds stand partly allowed.
Section 92CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 115JB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
1