Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 vs Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd on 10 June, 2019

32. Dr. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the sole respondent, in this connection, has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. [order, dated 04.01.2017, in Income Tax Appeal No. 1132/2014]. The High Court of Bombay, in the said decision, on consideration of a similar issue, proceeded to draw the following conclusions:
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Hind Securities Services And House ... vs Ito, Ward-28(5), Delhi on 25 April, 2022

i) In the case of Everest Kento Cylinder Ltd (Supra), assessee's AE availed loan from ICICI Bank for which assessee gave corporate guarantee. The loan was for working capital as well as capital expenditure. Assessee had charged guarantee commission @ 0.5%. The AO took external comparable and benchmarked the rate at 3%. Before the Hon'bie Tribunal, it was stated that assessee itself paid 0.6% to ICICI Bank for guaranteeing a separate loan for assessee. Hon'bie Tribunal took the view that 0.5% guarantee fee is reasonable in view of the fact that rate of interest paid by AE was much lower than interest paid by assessee itself. TP adjustment made by TPO was accordingly deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1