IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2013-14 I.T.A. No. 2365/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.A. No. 2366/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 I.T.A. No. 2367/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 I.T.A. No. 2767/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 DCIT(CC)-8(3) Vs. JSW Energy Limited

2^nd Floor, JSW Centre Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, SO Mumbai - 400051 [PAN: AAACJ8109N]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

C.O. No. 112/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 C.O. No. 111/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 C.O. No. 113/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 C.O. No. 114/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 C.O. No. 115/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 JSW Energy Limited Vs. DCIT(CC)-8(3)

2nd Floor, JSW Centre Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, SO Mumbai - 400051 [PAN: AAACJ8109N]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Gaurav Kabra, A/R Respondent by Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT D/R I.T.A. No. 2367/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 112/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 111/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 113/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 114/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 115/Mum/2025 Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 ORDER Per Bench:

The present cross-appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee arise out of the following separate orders passed for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 and 2017-18 to 2018-19:-

2. In the cross-appeals the assesse is challenging validity of final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act being time barred as per the provisions of the Act. However, the Ld.AR submitted that, the issue may be kept open as the assessee wishes to primarily argue on merits.

3. Admittedly, all issues raised in the revenue’s appeals are common and on identical facts. They were thus heard together to be disposed of by way of a consolidated order. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we are referring to the facts for assessment year 2013-14.

I.T.A. No. 2367/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 112/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 111/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 113/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 114/Mum/2025 C.O. No. 115/Mum/2025 The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for assessment year 2013-14 are as under:-

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment of Rs. 10,62,65,292/- on account of interest receivable on loans given to Associated Enterprise?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in not considering that the loan was forwarded by the assessee to the Mauritius AE and not to the South African AE, hence the geographical search is relevant to Mauritius only?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in not considering that the credit rating of the AE is determined as BBB-, which is on the basis of consolidated financials of all the AEs, whereas the credit rating of the comparable companies are that of A-, BBB+ and BBB?

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the floating rate of interest and not the fixed rate of interest of 8.113%, which was based on LIBOR + 600 basis points, since the assessee had charged interest but the same was not received for F.Y. 2012–13?

5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment of Rs. 5,81,315/- on account of interest on overdue receivables from AEs merely on the ground that the method used for benchmarking the transaction by the TPO was the same as that was used to calculate interest on loans given by assessee to AE, when outstanding receivables from AE have been treated as ‘loan’ advanced to the AE and hence the same method used for benchmarking interest receivable on loans given to the AE has correctly been applied by the TPO?

6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD. v/s AU