9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce this issue has already been decided by the various Co-ordinate Benches in favour of the assessee in the earlier years, we, therefore, respectfully following the same direct the AO/TPO to do it accordingly. Disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) - Held that:- Where the assessee has substantial own funds, then presumption is that assessee has given advances to its sister concerns from its own funds. Thus, following the ratio laid down in the cases of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the issue has been decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s. 14A computed @ 0.5% of average value of investments on account of administrative expenses - Held that:- In this case, the assessee has not made any suo motu disallowance towards exempt income, which was to the tune of ₹ 16.01 Crores during the year so there is no reasons to go into the satisfaction by the AO before invoking provisions of 14A rule 8D. Undisputedly, no investment was made during the year in the subsidiary companies. DRP deleted the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. rule 8D(2)(ii) by recording a finding on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore Branch, ING Bank N.V., Singapore Branch, Macquerie Capital (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., for securing foreign currency loans to various bodies and entities. The Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] determined the Arm s Length Price [ALP] of guarantee commission at 1.75% based on adhoc credit rating of assessee and its AE and Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] also upheld the order of the TPO in applying ALP at 1.75% but given partial relief by directing to compute the guarantee only for the period of guarantee as against the entire year. 3.2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue of guarantee commission is decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 2012-13, wherein the Co-ordinate Benches have held that guarantee commission of 1% of the outstanding guarantee amount should be charged to benchmark the guarantee commission. 3.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the decisions relied upon. Since this issue has already been decided by the various Co-ordinate Benches in favour of the assessee in the earlier years, we therefore ,respectfully following the same, dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 31-03-2013. The assessee has own funds of ₹ 22.93 Crores as on the said date. The AO held that the assessee has not established the commercial expediency for advancing interest free loans to sister concerns/subsidiaries and the DRP has confirmed the order of AO. 5.2. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the issue involved in Ground Nos. 11 to 13 has also been decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 2012-13 under similar facts, wherein the Co-ordinate Benches have held that where the assessee has substantial own funds, then presumption is that assessee has given advances to its sister concerns from its own funds. Thus, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities Ltd[313 ITR 340] (Bombay High Court) and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., in ITA No. 330 of 2012) (Bombay High Court), dt. 23-07-2014, the issue has been decided in favour of assessee. 5.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the decisions relied upon. Since this issue is also squarely covered by the decisions of various Co-ordinate Benches in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Vs. Central Bank of India [264 ITR 522] (Bombay High Court); iii. State Bank of Indore Vs. CIT [193 CTR 62] (Madhya Pradesh High Court); iv. Eicher Ltd., [101 TTJ 369] (Delhi ITAT); v. Wimco Seedings Limited Vs. DCIT [107 ITD 267]; 6.2.i. Ld. AR also relied on the following decisions, on the issue of non-recording of satisfaction: i. Maxopp Investment Limited [402 ITR 640] (SC); ii. Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., [394 ITR 449] (SC); iii. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd., (ITA No. 487 of 2015), dt. 19-09-2017 (Bombay High Court) affirmed by Hon'ble SC (98 Taxmann.com 361) (SC); iv. Arun Gruh Ltd., [168 ITD 518], dt. 15-12-2017 (Mumbai Tribunal); v. Leena Kasbekar [166 ITD 440], dt. 28-07-2017 (Mumbai Tribunal); 6.3. Ld. DR on the other hand argued that the application of Section 14A of the Act is mandatory and therefore the provisions of Section 14A of the Act cannot be substituted by any arbitrary calculation, as been proposed by the Ld. AR. 6.4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the decisions relied upon. We observe that in this case, the assessee has not made any suo motu disallowance towards exempt income, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
