JUDGMENT :

1. Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questions are presented for our consideration:-

"1. Whether in the facts and in circumstances of case, the ITAT was justified in law and has not acted perversely in restricting the adjustment on account of interest free loans advanced to Aes to prevailing LIBOR +2% with addressing the evidences and facts brought on record by the TPO.

2. Whether in the facts and in circumstances of case, the ITAT was justified in law and has not acted perversely in deleting the adjustment of Rs.42847925/- made by the Assessing officer on account of adjustment of Corporate Guarantee without appreciating the fact that as per amendment by Finance Act 2012, insertion of explanation (i) (c) to section 92B, clarifies that corporate guarantee comes within the scope and ambit of international transaction.

3. Whether in the facts and in circumstances of case, the ITAT was justified in law and has not acted perversely in allowing the write off of loss of Rs.410227250/- on account of investment made in equity shares of one of its subsidiary Indo Medico Co. S.De. R.L. De. V.V.s, Mexico without appreciating the fact that the amount is not an expense, loan or advance of any kind that is required to be debited form the profit and loss statement of the assessee and the amount even when it was an investment was never debited from the P & L statement of the company as required by accounting principles. Whether investment is not in the nature of a capital loss.

4. Whether in the facts and in circumstances of case, the ITAT was justified in law in allowing the write off of investment of Rs.410227250/- for the purpose of computing "book profit" u/s. 115JB, the book profit of the assessee is to be increased by the amount or amounts set aside to provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities. Whether in such circumstances, the write back of investment of Rs.410227250/- for the purpose of computing book profits u/s. 115JB is correct in law.

5. Whether in the facts and in circumstances of case, the ITAT was justified in law to remit back the issue of disallowance out of provision for doubtful loans to subsidiary to the file of the Assessing of ficer for verification without assigning any reasons and inspite of the facts that loan and advance are not revenue expenses and the details/information provided by the assessee has already been considered during the assessment proceedings.

6. Whether in the facts and in circumstances of case, the ITAT was justified in law in remitting back the issue of disallowance out of bad debts provision claimed in MAT to the file of the Assessing of ficer for verification without assigning any reasons and inspite of the fact that the details/information provided by the assessee has already been considered during the assessment proceedings."

2. At one stage this appeal was dismissed by an order dated 20.11.2017. However on an appeal filed by the revenue, the Supreme Court by an order dated 08.01.2020 has remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration. Accordingly, we have heard learned advocates for the parties at some length. So far as questions No. 1 and 2 are concerned, it is pointed out to us that the issue is squarely covered by a detailed judgment of this Court dated 13.10.2017 in appeal No.14/2015 concerning this very assessee. Under the circumstances these questions are not considered.

3. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, the same is covered by a recent order dated 15.12.2021 passed by this Court in appeal No. 53/2021 which also concerned this very assessee. The discussion in the order may be noted:-

"The second question pertains to the objection of the revenue to the claim of the assessee of a business loss of Rs. 50.72 crores (rounded off) on account of permanent diminution in the value of the investment made in the equity shares in one of the subsidiaries of the assessee in USA. According to th