ITAT grants relief in appeal, directs AO to reconsider claims, emphasizes adherence to precedents.

The ITAT partially allowed the assessee's appeal, providing relief on various grounds including corporate guarantee fee adjustment, interest on foreign currency loans adjustment, and disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. The ITAT directed the AO to reconsider certain claims on merits, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established precedents and examining genuine claims.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Corporate Guarantee Fee Adjustment
2. Interest on Foreign Currency Loans Adjustment
3. Adjustments on Account of Reimbursement Received from AEs
4. Disallowance of Brought Forward Business Losses
5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill
6. Incorrect Computation of Book Profit under MAT
7. Additional Claims Made During Assessment Proceedings
8. Claim of Deduction of Education Cess

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Corporate Guarantee Fee Adjustment:
The assessee challenged the upward adjustment of Rs.2,28,67,811/- made by the TPO by imputing the arm’s length corporate guarantee fee rate at 0.5% instead of 0.25%. The assessee argued that the corporate guarantee fee charged was based on specific quotations from HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank. The ITAT noted that in earlier years, the Tribunal had upheld the corporate guarantee fee rate at 0.25% in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the adjustment made by the TPO, holding that the AO was not justified in making the adjustment.

2. Interest on Foreign Currency Loans Adjustment:
The TPO proposed an upward adjustment of Rs.12,98,917/- by using LIBOR + 250 basis points as ALP. The ITAT observed that in the assessee's own case for earlier years, the Tribunal had held that LIBOR + 250 basis points was appropriate for benchmarking foreign currency loans. The ITAT thus held that no adjustment was called for and allowed the assessee's ground.

3. Adjustments on Account of Reimbursement Received from AEs:
The TPO re-characterized the reimbursement of expenses as intra-group services and proposed a mark-up. The ITAT noted that the reimbursements were on a cost-to-cost basis without any value addition by the assessee. Citing the decision in Vedanta Ltd., the ITAT held that no mark-up was warranted on the reimbursement of primary third-party expenses. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's ground.

4. Disallowance of Brought Forward Business Losses:
The AO disallowed the set-off of brought forward business losses of Rs.24,84,48,618/- from A.Y. 2013-14. The ITAT directed the AO to allow the claim of losses when the same is finally determined in accordance with law.

5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill:
The AO disallowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.25,53,577/-. The ITAT, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. and the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, directed the AO to grant depreciation on goodwill.

6. Incorrect Computation of Book Profit under MAT:
The AO added the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill to compute the book profit under MAT. The ITAT held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed, it cannot be added to the book profit. Thus, the ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition made to book profit.

7. Additional Claims Made During Assessment Proceedings:
- Claim of Deduction u/s 80-IA: The ITAT set aside the issue back to the AO to consider the claim on merits.
- Claim of Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia): The ITAT, following its decision in earlier years, remitted the issue back to the AO for verification and consideration on merits.
- Claim of TDS and Self-Assessment Tax: The ITAT restored the matter to the AO to examine and allow the claim if found in order.

8. Claim of Deduction of Education Cess:
The ITAT, following the decision in ExLServices.com (India) Pvt. Ltd., held that education cess is an allowable deduction and directed the AO to allow the claim.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee partly, providing relief on various grounds while directing the AO to reconsider certain claims on merits. The judgment emphasized adherence to established precedents and the necessity of examining genuine claims.

---