At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE: RANJAN GOGOI
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: K.M. JOSEPH
For Petitioner: Ritesh Kumar, Meenakshi Grover and Anil Katiyar, Advocates. And For Respondents: Percy Pardiwala, Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Harsh Jain and Ankita Gupta, Advocates.
Judgment Text
1. 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 AO on account of guarantee commission chargeable to its AEs, whether the benchmark fixed by the IPO for the international transaction by considering arm's length rate of the bank guarantee at 3 per cent Under Section 92CA(3) of the IT Act, 1961 was correct?
(ii) Whether interest was not payable by the Assessee/Respondent under s. 234B of the IT Act, 1961 on failure to deposit the advance tax in respect of tax payable Under Section 115JB of the IT Act, 1961?"
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Insofar as question No. (ii) i.e., interest payable Under Section 234B of the IT Act, 1961 is concerned, the mat
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ter will require an in-depth hearing. List the appeal on the said question i.e. question No. (ii) as per its turn.
