, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,’डी’

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.147/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1182/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s.VA Tech Wabag Pvt. Ltd., Tax, WABAG House No.17, Central Circle-3(2), 200 Feet, Thoraipakkam, Chennai. Pallavaram Main Road, Sunnambu Kolathur, Chennai-600 117.

[PAN: AABCV0225G]

(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (

प्रत्यर्थी

/Respondent)

अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman, Sr.Advocate for Mr.T.Ramesh Kutty & B.Sivaraman, Advocates प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 / O R D E R आदेश PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order bearing ITA No.1/16-17 dated 25.10.2017 and ITA No.137/16-17 dated 08.01.2018 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2012-13. Through the aforesaid appeals the Revenue has challenged order u/s 143(3) dated 29.02.2016 & 17.05.2016 passed by Ld.AO Chennai. Both the appeals having common issues are adjudicated together by this common order for the purposes of convenience.

ITA No.1182/Chny/2018, Assessment Years: 2012-13

2.0 The first issue raised by the Revenue through its grounds of appeal are regarding the addition of Transfer Pricing. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter pertains to Corporate performance guarantee provided on account of acquiring purchase of shares of VA Tech Wabag Austria and which is a covered matter in terms of decision of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.7,8,9 & 326/Chny/2021 dated 16.10.2024 in assessee’s own case. The Ld.DR from the Revenue conceded but would still like to place reliance upon the order of Ld. AO.

3.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted the decision of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.7,8,9 & 326/Chny/2021 dated 16.10.2024 in assessee’s own case. Thus, para 18 to 20 of the impugned order reads as under:-

“…..18.0 The next issue that has been raised by the revenue for AY-2013- 14 is in respect of action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld. AO in respect of transfer pricing adjustments u/s 92CA(3). From the perusal of Ld. AO’s order we find that the Ld. TPO had recommended an adjustment of 1% of the value of services provided, in this case being value of the corporate guaranty to its overseas AEs. As per the factual matrix the assesse had acquired shares of VA Tech Wabag GmbH Austria from siemens and the purchase consideration for the acquisition of the shares of the company namely VA Tech Wabag GmbH Austria is by taking over the contingent liability which included performance bank guaranty given by Austrian subsidiary to various customers amounting to some 70 Million Euros. Originally these customers of VA Tech Austria AE were guaranteed by the bank of Austria and backed by corporate performance guaranty given by Siemens. Upon acquisition of shares from Siemens the assesse entered its (Siemens) shoes qua corporate performance guaranty. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the assesse had extended corporate guaranty for its overseas associated enterprises and that there was no cost imbedded therein. It was argued that consequently there cannot be any case for disturbance to its ALP. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the extension of a corporate guaranty is a cost neutral activity and therefore cannot be part of any ALP adjustments. While deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO he relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this tribunal in ITA No.458 / MDS / 201 in the case of TVS L