TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ready charged by the assessee is corrected as in case the commission already charged by the assessee is less than 0.5% . - M.A. No. 201/Mum/2020 arising in I.T.A. No. 2068/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2021 - Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) And Shri Pavankumar Gadale (JM) For the Assessee : Shri Madhur Agarwal For the Department : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- By way of this Miscellaneous Application assessee made following submissions seeking rectification of mistake apparent from record in the order of this Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal Number 2068/Mum/2016 vide order dated 27.5.2020 :- THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT ABOVENAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT 1. The above-mentioned appeal w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Essel Propack Polska Poland Raiffesen Poland 19,94,05,000 5,61,08,514 In the case of LTLM above, the Applicant has charged a guarantee commission of 1%, while in other cases the Applicant has not charged any guarantee commission. b) The following loans taken by the AEs are only backed by corporate guarantee of the Applicant. Name of the Borrower Name of the Bank/ FIs Guarantee Amt (Rs) Loan o/s as on 31.03.2011 Lamitube Technologies Ltd., Mauritius SBI Mauritius 22,29,75,000 16,72,31,250 Lamitube Techno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pricing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the TPO ), vide order dated 27th January, 2015 under section 92CA(3) of the Act, inter alia proposed an adjustment of ₹ 3,83,02,220 on account of ALP of Guarantees given to bank for AE. 6. The DRP confirmed the adjustment made by the TPO / AO on account of the aforesaid guarantee. 7. The AO vide order dated 28th January, 2016 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act [hereinafter referred to as the Final Assessment Order ], completed the assessment making, inter alia, an addition of ₹ 3,60,13,918 with respect of the transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee on behalf of the AE confirmed by the DRP. 8. The Applicant filed an appeal to the Hon'ble Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co Ltd (supra). This submission of the Id. AR for the assessee is not acceptable to us, as there is numerous contrary decision of Tribunal on the issue. Otherwise, this fact was also fairly accepted by Id. AR for the assessee during his submission. However, we find merit in the alternative submissions of the assessee that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd (supra) held that 0.5% of guarantee commissions is at arm's length price. Thus, we accept the alternative submission of the Id. AR for the assessee and direct the AO/TPO to recompute the adjustment on account of other guarantee commissions @ 0.5% in additions to the commissions already charged by the assessee. We also accept the submission of lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
