Guarantee commission not 'Levy' for the purposes of disallowance under Section 40(a)(iib) of the IT Act


Last updated: 15 November 2021

Court :
ITAT Bangalore

Brief :
In M/s. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [ITA 3064 /BANG/2018, decided on November 10, 2021], Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ("ITAT") held that guarantee commission paid in consideration for the state government agreeing to suffer a detriment in the event of non-payment of the bonds on its maturity and is merely a contractual paymentand not levy.

Citation :
ITA 3064 /BANG/2018, decided on November 10, 2021

In M/s. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [ITA 3064 /BANG/2018, decided on November 10, 2021], Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ("ITAT") held that guarantee commission paid in consideration for the state government agreeing to suffer a detriment in the event of non-payment of the bonds on its maturity and is merely a contractual paymentand not levy.

M/s. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd ("the Appellant") challenged an Assessment Order dated September 29, 2018 ("Assessment Order") passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO"), disallowing the guarantee commission under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act").

The Hon'ble ITAT observed that, for a transaction to qualify as a levy for the purpose of Section 40(a)(iib) of IT Act, the payment to the state government by a state government undertaking should be based on a power on the part of the state government to impose a levy, whereas guarantee commission is paid in consideration for the state government agreeing to suffer a detriment in the event of the assessee not repaying the value of the bonds on its maturity and is merely a contractual payment.

ITAT relied upon the case of Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT [(2020) 116 taxmann.com 555] passed by Hon'ble Kerala High Court and observed that, guarantee is not exclusively given by the state government only to the Appellant, which is a State Government undertaking, but to various government departments, public sector undertakings, local authorities, statutory boards, corporations and co-operative Institutions etc.

Held that, in the present case guarantee commission is not paid directly to the state government and they are not levied exclusively on the Appellant and also held that guarantee commission does not fall under the ambit of levy.

Further held, that disallowance of guarantee commission under Section 40(a)(iib) of the IT Act is not sustainable and directed to delete the addition made in this regard.

 

CCI Pro

Bimal Jain
Published in Income Tax
Views : 136

Comments




CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members

Follow us
add to google news


Company
22 May 2026
Sr. Financial Analyst - Consolidation

Search Synergy

Mumbai

CA

View Details
Company
Featured 27 May 2026
Lead Conversion Executive / Sales Closing Executive

SMJ global advisors pvt ltd

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
26 May 2026
Audit executive

vdsr & co LLP

Chennai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
19 May 2026
Fundraising Expert

MentorsWorld Ventures Private Limited

Ahmedabad

Others

View Details
Company
19 May 2026
Accountant

ca kunjan

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
29 May 2026
Company Secretary - Part time

Shaswat initial support private limited

Ahmedabad

CS

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 27 May 2026
CA Article Trainee

Rahul Dang & Associates-Chartered Accountants

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 08 June 2026
Internal & Taxation Article

O P Bagla & Co LLP

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details