2015 (5) TMI 395 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Disallowance under section 14A - disallowance of ₹ 1 lakh confirmed by ITAT as against ₹ 20,27,896/- Held that:- Order of the Tribunal as regards disallowance under section 14A and restricting the same to ₹ 1 lac was justified in view of the material before the Tribunal. Furthermore, having considered the fact that a sum of ₹ 4,47,649/- was not conceded in the return but was adhoc acceptance during the course of assessment, the assessee could not be bound by it. The Tribunal as the second fact finding authority had gone into factual aspects in great detail and therefore having interpreted the law as it stood on the relevant date the order passed cannot be faulted. - decided against revenue

Order computing arms length price - ITAT deleting the addition on account of TP adjustment on guarantee commission - Held that:-Guarantee commission, the adjustment made by the TPO were based on instances restricted to the commercial banks providing guarantees and did not contemplate the issue of a Corporate Guarantee. No doubt these are contracts of guarantee, however, when they are Commercial banks that issue bank guarantees which are treated as the blood of commerce being easily encashable in the event of default, and if the bank guarantee had to be obtained from Commercial Banks, the higher commission could have been justified. In the present case, it is assessee company that is issuing Corporate Guarantee to the effect that if the subsidiary AE does not repay loan availed of it from ICICI, then in such event, the assessee would make good the amount and repay the loan. The considerations which applied for issuance of a Corporate guarantee are distinct and separate from that of bank guarantee and accordingly we are of the view that commission charged cannot be called in question, in the manner TPO has done. In our view the comparison is not as between like transactions but the comparisons are between guarantees issued by the commercial banks as against a Corporate Guarantee issued by holding company for the benefit of its AE, a subsidiary company. No substantial question of law - decided against revenue