आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी ’ (cid:7008)यायपीठ, च(cid:7382)े

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:7088)ी जॉज (cid:6981) जॉज (cid:6981) के, उपा(cid:7007)य(cid:6979) एव ं (cid:7088)ी एस.आर.रघनु ाथा, लखे ा सद(cid:7021)य के सम(cid:6979)

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & ITA No.3113/CHNY/2024 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of No. 234, Dare House, NSC Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

[PAN: AAACE-0702-C]

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

I.T.A. No. 3251/Chny/2024 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., Income Tax, No. 234, Dare House, NSC Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Chennai. Chennai 600 001.

(अपीलाथ(cid:7278)/Appellant) ((cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (cid:7079)(cid:7004)यथ(cid:7278) क(cid:7409) ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Hearing : 2 0.03.2025 घोषणा क(cid:7409) तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 आदशे / O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

These four appeals filed at the instance of the assessee are directed against four separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Chennai passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter called ‘the Act’] (All the orders are dated 10.10.2024). The relevant assessment years are 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Revenue has also preferred cross appeal for the assessment year

2012-13 (ITA No. 3251/Chny/2024).

2. Common issues are raised in these appeals, hence, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. By the consent of both the parties, the appeal in IT(TP)A. No. 105/Chny/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 is taken as lead case for adjudication.

3. The first common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 is with regard to the confirmation of computation of Arm’s Length Price at 1.65% on the value of Letter of Comfort (LOC)/Guarantee offered by the assessee on behalf of its associated enterprise.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

5. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 04.11.2011 admitting a loss of ₹.47,17,77,686/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act dated 16.08.2012. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 02.08.2012 was duly served on the assessee. As per Form 3CEB submitted by the assessee, the assessee company has International Transaction with associated enterprises for ₹.26,26,07,912/-Therefore, the Assessing Officer referred the case to Transfer Pricing Officer under section 92CA of the Act for determination of Arm's length price of the international transactions.

6. On analysis of the financial statement and Form 3CEB of the assessee for the FY 2010-11, the TPO has ascertained that the assessee has provided LOC/guarantee to the tune of ₹.4.46 crores on behalf of its AE M/s. Parry America Inc. Accordingly, the assessee was required to explain as to why the mark-up of 2.39% should not be levied on the LOC/guarantee as ALP of the commission on LOC/Guarantee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the TPO made various observations at para 6 of his order dated 30.12.2014. The same is reproduced as under:

(i) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company has provided the LOC/guarantee to its AE.

(ii) The provisions of the sec.92B of the Income Tax Act 1961 clearly states that any capital financing, including any type of long-term or short-