Case Law Details
CIT Vs M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Hon;ble Supreme Court Upheld the Judgment of Hon;ble HIgh Court and held that Arm’s length price of corporate guarantee could not be determined on the basis of comparison with bank guarantee and as such, High Court rightly affirmed the view taken by ITAT deleting the addition to the income of assessee – company made by AO on account of guarantee commission chargeable to its AE.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
The following two questions arise for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue.
(i) With respect to addition of Rs.11,51,24,333/- to the income of the assessee (respondent herein) made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of guarantee commission chargeable to its Associate Enterprises, whether the benchmark fixed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the international transaction by considering arm’s length rate of the bank guarantee at 3% under Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was correct?
(ii) Whether interest was not payable by the assessee/respondent under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on failure to deposit the advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
Insofar as question No.(i) is concerned we have perused the order of the learned Tribunal and the order of the High Court affirming the view taken by the learned Tribunal.
On such consideration we find that question No.1 has been rightly decided by the High Court in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The same would, therefore, not require reopening in this appeal.
Insofar as question No.(ii) i.e. interest payable under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned, the matter will require an in-depth hearing.
List the appeal on the said question i.e. question No.(ii) as per its turn.
