KPMG FLASH NEWS

KPMG IN INDIA

The Mumbai Tribunal upheld guarantee commission charged on loans and letter
of credit facility at 0.53 percent and 1.47 percent respectively as arms length
11 December 2013

Background

Facts of the case

Recently, the Mumbai Bench of the Income-tax Appellate

Tribunal (the Tribunal), in the case of Glenmark
1
Pharmaceuticals Limited (the taxpayer), explained the
difference between corporate guarantee and bank
guarantee, and held that bank guarantee rates available in
the public domain cannot be mechanically applied in
determining the arms length price. If proposed to be
used, the bank guarantee rates should be adjusted for
various differences, such as (i) risk profiles of the
respondents for the guarantee, (ii) financial position of the
loan applicants, (iii) term of the guarantee, (iv) security
involved, (v) quantum of guarantee, (vii) period of
guarantee, (viii) past history of the customers, etc. in
accordance with Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962
(the Rules).

The taxpayer is engaged in the business of

manufacturing
and
marketing
of
pharmaceutical products and related Research
and Development activities.

During the year under consideration, the

taxpayer had charged guarantee commission
of 0.53 percent and 1.47 percent in respect of
guarantee provided in connection with bank
loans and LC facilities availed by its Associated
Enterprises (AEs); Glenmark Holding SA,
Switzerland and Glenmark Generics SA,
Argentina respectively. In the Transfer Pricing
study (TP study) undertaken by the taxpayer,
the guarantee commission charged of 0.53
percent for loan guaranteed and 1.47 percent
for LC facility was determined to be at arms
length applying the Comparable Uncontrolled
Price (CUP) method.

The Tribunal analysed co-ordinate bench rulings in case

of Asian Paints, Reliance Industries, Everest Kanto, etc.,
and upheld guarantee commission rates charged on loans
and letter of credit facility at 0.53 percent and 1.47 percent
respectively as arms length.
_________________
1

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited v. ACIT (ITA No. 5031/M/2012)

Taxsutra.com
2013 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

- EXIM Bank of USA (3 percent per

annum):

The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected the TP

study stating that the taxpayer failed to discharge its
primary onus of benchmarking the transaction and
determined arms length guarantee commission at
three percent of the guaranteed amount based on
guarantee commission rates charged by various
banks, i.e. Allahabad Bank (3 percent per annum);
Dutch State, FMO (2.5 percent per annum); HSBC Ltd
(0.15 percent to 3 percent per annum); and EXIM
Bank of USA (3 percent per annum) resulting in an
adjustment of INR 115.1 million.
The taxpayer filed an appeal before the Commissioner
of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] against the above
adjustment and submitted that following points should
be considered while determining arms length price of
the taxpayers guarantee commission: (a) Interest
saving, (b) Adjustments towards negotiations, (c) risk
undertaken by the taxpayer while providing guarantee
to the AEs, etc. The CIT(A) however, upheld the
adjustment made by the TPO and determined the
guarantee commission at 3 percent as arms length.

- Allahabad Bank (3 percent per annum):

- FMO (Netherland Financier) (2.5 percent per

annum):

Essential facts relating to this comparable are

not available in the public domain.

- HSBC (0.15 percent to 3 percent per annum):

The taxpayers contentions were in line with

those for Allahabad Bank.

Guarantee commission rate cannot be

equal to LIBOR rate which is nearly 3
percent.

The taxpayer contended that guarantee

commission rates charged by its financier, Bank
of India, to its customers may also be indicative
of the arms length guarantee commission.
However, the same would need to be adjusted
for factors, such as interest rates, risk factors,
guarantee amounts, nature of transactions, past
history of customers, etc.

Bank guarantees are not comparable to the

corporate guarantee provided by the taxpayer.

The Tribunal in various cases has upheld

corporate guarantee commission prices/ rates in
the range of 0.25 percent to 0.6 percent as arms
length.

The DR relied on the order of TPO, and the

Tribunal decision in case of M/s Technimont ICB
Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6394/Mum/ 2012) stating that
bank guarantee commission rate of 3 percent
was upheld in this case.

The rates apply to guarantee upto INR 100 million

vis--vis INR 4500 million guaranteed by the
taxpayer.

Details of negotiations were not available in

the public domain

This is a case of bank guarantee offered to the

customers and not a corporate guarantee
The rates are applicable to rupee loans and not
foreign currency loans

The taxpayer highlighted that the above rates

were rejected by the Tribunal in various rulings,
i.e. M/s Asian Paints Ltd. (ITA No.
1937/Mum/2010) and M/s Everest Kanto Cylinder
Ltd. (ITA No. 542/Mum/2012) and M/s Reliance
Industries Limited (ITA No. 4475/ Mum/2011).

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the taxpayer filed an

appeal before the Tribunal.

The taxpayer distinguished each of the comparables

selected by the TPO on, inter alia, the following
grounds:

The said transaction is not the case of

corporate guarantee

Proceedings before the Tribunal

Tribunals ruling

There are conceptual differences between a bank

guarantee and a corporate guarantee.
In
corporate guarantee, guarantee of payment is
made by a corporation on behalf of another
business entity. The guarantee is provided in
consideration of a vendor providing credit to a
business, on whose behalf the guarantee is
made. Corporate guarantee operates not for
business considerations, but to provide
safeguards for the financial health of the AEs.
Bank guarantee is a surety bond in finance, a
promise by one party to assume responsibility for
the debt obligation of a borrower if the borrower

2013 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

defaults. Commercial considerations are paramount in

fixing charges in case of a bank guarantee. Hence, a
bank guarantee comparable may not clear the
Functions, Assets and Risks (FAR) analysis test in
case of a corporate guarantee.

Bank guarantee rates cannot be applied mechanically.

These need to be adjusted for various factors, such as
(i) risk profiles of the respondents for the guarantee,
(ii) financial position of the loan applicants,(iii) terms of
the guarantee, (iv) securities involved,(v) quantum of
guarantee,(vi) amount involved, (vii) period of
guarantee, (viii) past history of the customers, etc.

The ruling of Technimont ICB Ltd. is an aberration and

the facts are distinguishable vis--vis taxpayers case.
The Tribunal has analysed various rulings like Asian
Paints Ltd, Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd, and Reliance
Industries Ltd on guarantee commission and
concluded that the guarantee commission rates of
0.53 percent and 1.47 percent on loans and LC facility
are at arms length.

Our comments
In recent assessments, the TPOs have determined the
arms length guarantee commission either by applying
guarantee commission rates charged by banks or by
applying the interest savings method using Indian interest
rates. The above ruling exhibits significant precedent value
in the first case as the Tribunal has evaluated and clearly
distinguished a corporate guarantee vis--vis a bank
guarantee. Further, it also emphasises the need to make
adjustments for various factors affecting the guarantee
rates as highlighted above. Hence, in the absence of any
specific guidance under the Indian TP Regulations, this
ruling assumes notable importance and should prove to be
useful from a taxpayers perspective. However, from a
taxpayers perspective it would be important to ensure that
there is robust documentation in relation to the guarantee
transaction and that the same is appropriately
benchmarked based on a complete understanding of the
facts surrounding the transaction.
Separately, it is relevant to note that recently the CBDT has
issued Safe Harbour Rules wherein, a safe harbor
guarantee commission of 2 percent (where the amount
guaranteed does not exceed INR 1000 million) and 1.75
percent (where the amount guaranteed exceeds INR 1000
million) has been prescribed. In light of this, a guarantee
commission of 0.53 percent and 1.47 percent accepted by
the Tribunal is a positive development.

2013 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

www.kpmg.com/in

Ahmedabad
Safal Profitaire
B4 3rd Floor, Corporate Road,
Opp. Auda Garden, Prahlad Nagar
Ahmedabad 380 015
Tel: +91 79 4040 2200
Fax: +91 79 4040 2244

Hyderabad
8-2-618/2
Reliance Humsafar, 4th Floor
Road No.11, Banjara Hills
Hyderabad 500 034
Tel: +91 40 3046 5000
Fax: +91 40 3046 5299

Bangalore
Maruthi Info-Tech Centre
11-12/1, Inner Ring Road
Koramangala, Bangalore 560 071
Tel: +91 80 3980 6000
Fax: +91 80 3980 6999

Kochi
4/F, Palal Towers
M. G. Road, Ravipuram,
Kochi 682 016
Tel: +91 484 302 7000
Fax: +91 484 302 7001

Chandigarh
SCO 22-23 (Ist Floor)
Sector 8C, Madhya Marg
Chandigarh 160 009
Tel: +91 172 393 5777/781
Fax: +91 172 393 5780
Chennai
No.10, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034
Tel: +91 44 3914 5000
Fax: +91 44 3914 5999
Delhi
Building No.10, 8th Floor
DLF Cyber City, Phase II
Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002
Tel: +91 124 307 4000
Fax: +91 124 254 9101

Kolkata
Infinity Benchmark, Plot No. G-1
10th Floor, Block EP & GP,
Sector V Salt Lake City,
Kolkata 700 091
Tel: +91 33 44034000
Fax: +91 33 44034199
Mumbai
Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills
N. M. Joshi Marg
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011
Tel: +91 22 3989 6000
Fax: +91 22 3983 6000
Pune
703, Godrej Castlemaine
Bund Garden
Pune 411 001
Tel: +91 20 3050 4000
Fax: +91 20 3050 4010

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we
endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue
to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
2013 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The KPMG name, logo and cutting through complexity are registered trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity.
2013 KPMG, an Indian Registered Partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.