Loan arranger requirements defects4/5/2024 ![]() ADIT admitted that the amount payable as “Arranger fee” is not interest and to that extent he accepted the contention of the assessee. CIT(A) called for the remand report from ADIT (International Taxation) –I, Mumbai, on written submission filed by the assessee giving detail reasoning as to why such “Arranger fee” cannot be termed as “interest”. CIT(A) u/s 248 denying its liability to deduct tax at source on such “Arranger’s fee”, as the said amount does not come within the definition “interest” u/s 2(28A) of the Act and therefore, such a remittance does not require tax deduction at source. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. At the time of deduction of tax, the assessee considered the amount as “interest” and deducted the tax at the applicable rate of 21.12%. 55,91,645/- u/s 195 of the Act and deposited the same in the Treasury of Govt. The assessee, out of abundant caution remitted the said amount payable as Arranger’s fees after deducting tax amounting to Rs. Pursuant to the said agreement dated 10-9-2009, the assessee was liable to pay Arranger’s fees to HSBC, Hongkong (“Arranger”) amounting to Rs. ![]() ![]() The HSBC, Hongkong had arranged for the loan as “Arranger” and UK based Company, HSBC Bank, PLC acted as a facility agent. The assessee (Idea Cellular Limited) had entered into “Term Loan Facility Agreement” dated 10th September, 2009, as borrower, with Finnish Export Credit Ltd., who is the lender.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |