DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

PER BENCH: 1. These three appeals by revenue and Cross Objections (C.O.) therein

by assessee are directed again the separate orders of learned

CIT(A)-56 Mumbai, for assessment years (AYs) 2013-14 to 2015-16.

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) In all appeals and in C.O.(s), the parties have raised certain common

grounds of appeal, certain facts in all years are common, thus, with

the consent of both the parties all the appeals and C.O.(s) were

clubbed heard together and are decided by common order to avoid

the conflicting decisions. For appreciation of facts, the facts in AY

2013-14 are treated as lead case. The revenue has raised following

grounds of appeals;

(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITT(A) was justified in deleting the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 80,59,129/- on account of addition made by the transfer pricing officer towards interest on loans advanced by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises.

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment by relying on the order of Hon'ble !TAT in the case of JSW Energy Ltd vs DCIT, in ITA No. 2316/Mum/2017 without appreciating that the facts of the international transaction of JSW Energy Ltd were different than that of the assessee's international transaction of loans of current year?

(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment by applying the judgment in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2008-09 to A.Y 2011-12 without considering the fact that the transfer pricing study is highly facts- based exercise based on contemporaneous data and it differs from case to case and that all the factors in Rule 108 have to be considered for every case and every year independently and that a rate decided in a different case for different set of facts and for different year cannot be adopted as such to the instant assessee, which would be violative of the specific provisions in Rule 10B?

(4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing to restrict the TP adjustment of Corporate Guarantee to 0.35% instead of 2.00% made by the

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) Transfer Pricing Officer on account of corporate guarantee fee issued by assessee in favour of its associated enterprises?

(5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) is justified in setting the corporate guarantee rate at 0.35% without considering the fact that in the benchmarking undertaken by the assessee they had arrived at ALP corporate guarantee commission rate which is more than 0.35%, for instance, the assessee has offered a guarantee fee of Rs. 61,39,319/-against JSW Steel (Netherlands) B.V. which is 0.63%?

(6) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in setting the corporate guarantee rate at 0.35% without considering the benchmarking undertaken by the assessee and the benchmarking undertaken by the TPO?

(7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justifieddeleting the adjustment without considering the flaws pointed by the TPO in benchmarking undertaken by the assessee?

(8) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in setting the corporate guarantee rate at 0.35% without giving any findings as to how the judgments relied by Hon'ble ITAT applied to the case of the assessee?

(9) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the fee for the guarantee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by the AE should be fixed at 0.35% placing reliance upon the decision in other cases, without realizing the fact that the transfer pricing study is highly facts-based exercise based on contemporaneous data and it differs from case to case and that all the factors in Rule 108 have to be considered for every case and every year independently and that a rate decided in a different case for different set of facts and for different year cannot be adopted as such to the instant assessee, which would be violative of the specific provisions in Rule 10B?

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) (10) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the fee for the guarantee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by the AE should be fixed at 0.35% placing reliance upon the decision other cases, which is in violation of provisions of Rule 10B of IT Rules as credit ratings and the interest rate vary every year?

(11) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the fee for the guarantee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by the AE should be fixed at 0.35% placing reliance upon the decision in other cases, without adopting any of the methods prescribed in Section 92C which is violation of law?

(12) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of the deduction claimed amounting to Rs. 58,87,28,619/-u/s. 80-IA in respect of the Rail System, without adequately considering the facts and findings brought out by the Assessing Officer, specifically that the claim of deduction has been made since AY 2008-09 and has been allowed by the Assessing Officer in subsequent years in a routine manner without thorough examination of the issue?

(13) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTГ(А) erred in deleting the disallowance of the deduction claimed amounting to Rs. 58,87,28,619/-u/s. 80-1A in respect of the Rail System, without adequately considering the decision in the case of Ultratech Cements Ltd for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, which the Assessing Officer relied upon and findings brought out by the Assessing Officer?

(14) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of the deduction claimed amounting to Rs.37,37,39,881/- u/s 80-IA in respect of the Water System, without adequately considering the findings presented by the Assessing Officer and the fact that the assesses objection on this issue was rejected by the Hon'ble DRP-1 (WZ)Mumbai, via order

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) under Section 144C(5) dated 29.12.2016, thereby failing to maintain consistency with the departmental stance?

(15) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the L.d. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, by overlooking the computational procedure prescribed in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which must be followed for making any disallowance u/s. 14A?

(16) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai, erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act from the total income on the grounds of non-application of mind as a quasi-judicial authority while recording dissatisfaction as required u/s 14A, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer provided detailed reasoning in paragraph 7 of the assessment order while invoking Rule 8D r.w.s. read with Section 14A? Furthermore, the CIT(A) failed to consider that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA No. 616 of 2010) held that both direct and indirect expenditures must be considered for determining the expenditure disallowable u/s 14A, and affirmed the constitutional validity of the Rules framed.?

(17) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CII(A) erred in allowing the deduction amounting to Rs.17,07,64,671/- claimed u/s. 80-1A in respect of income from the sale of CERs, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances brought out by the AO that the alleged receipt is not derived from eligible business and not considered it as capital receipt?

(18) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the L.d. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction amounting to Rs.17,07,64,671/- claimed u/s. 80-1A in respect of income from the sale of CERs, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances brought out by the AO that the alleged receipt is not derived from eligible business and not considered it as capital receipt?

(19) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary. 5

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16)

assessee filed its C.O. raising following grounds;

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law, the ld CIT(A)has erred in confirming the action of AO in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, which is time barred as per the provisions of the Act, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and required to be quashed.

(ii) The respondent craves leave to add, amend alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 3. Perusal of record shows that there is 55 days’ delay in filing Cross

Objection (CO). The assessee has filed an application for

condonation of delay of the CO. the application is supported with the

affidavit of Jayant Acharya, Joint Managing Director of the assessee

company. The ld Authorised representative (AR) of the assessee

submits that delay is not intentional or deliberate but due to the

facts that the assessee –company was in the process of seeking

legal opinion from consultant on the issue of limitation in passing

final order by AO. And ultimately it was recommended to file. The ld

AR for the assessee submits that there is small delay and it may be

condoned. 4. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-

departmental representative (CIT-DR) for the revenue not opposed

the plea in condoning the delay in filing CO. Thus, considering the

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) facts explained before us, and the facts that ld CIT-DR has not

opposed the delay in filing such CO. Hence, the delay in filing appeal

is condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts in brief as extracted from the orders of lower authorities are

that the appellant/ assessee is a domestic company engaged in the

business of integrated steel manufacturing, filed its return of income

on 29.11.2013 declaring total income of Nil after claim of deduction

under section 80IA of the Act amounting to Rs.5,80,17,78,541/-.

The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee while filing return

of income reported specified domestic transaction (SDT) with its

associated enterprises (AE) as mandated under section 92E of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 in Form 3CEB. Consequent upon, a reference

was made under section 92CA to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)

vide office order dated 17.10.2014 for computation of Arm’s Length

Price(ALP) of the specified domestic transactions. The TPO passed an

order under section 92CA (3) dated 01.11.2016 and made transfer

pricing adjustment amounting to Rs.16,51,87,465/- on account of

interest on advances given to AE and corporate guarantee fee. On

receipt of report of TPO, the AO forwarded a draft of the proposed

order of assessment under section 144C(1) of the Act on

30.12.2016. The assessee instead of filing objections before Dispute

Resolution Penal (DRP), opted to file appeal before CIT(A). Thus, the

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) AO passed final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C (3) on

10.02.2017 assessing the total income of the appellant at

Rs.16,51,87,470/- by making additions/ disallowances, consisting

adjustment on account of interest on loans given to AE amounting to

Rs. 80,59,129/-, adjustment on account of Corporate Guarantee fee

amounting to Rs. 15,71,28,336/-, disallowance of deduction claimed

under section 80IA of the Act on account of Rail System amounting

to Rs. 58,87,28,619/-, disallowance of deduction claimed under

section 80IA of the Act on account of water supply system

amounting to Rs. 37,37,39,881/-. Additional disallowance under

section 14A of Rs.44,37,99,039/- and also added such disallowance

of Rs.45,11,00,884/- while computing book profit under section

115JB for MAT calculation. Disallowance of deduction claimed under

section 80IA of the Act on account of Sale of CER amounting to Rs.

17,06,64,671/-. On appeal before ld CIT(A), the assessee was

allowed substantial relief to the assessee on various grounds of

appeal. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), the revenue has filed

present appeal before Tribunal. 6. We have heard the submissions of ld CIT-DR for the revenue and the

ld authorised representative (AR) of the assessee. At the outset of

hearing the ld AR of the assessee submits that all the grounds of

appeal raised by the revenue are covered by the decision of Tribunal

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) either in assesses own case for other years or in cases assesses

group case. The ld CIT(A) also allowed relief to the assessee by

following such decisions. The ld AR of the assessee also filed copy of

decisions of Tribunal in by which the different grounds of appeal are

covered. 7. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the appeal relates to the deleting the addition/

TP adjustment of interest of loan to its associated enterprises (AE) of

Rs. 80,59,129/-. The ld AR of the assessee submits that these

grounds of appeal are covered by the decision of Tribunal in assesses

group case in JSW Energy Limited Vs DCIT in ITA No.

2316/Mum/2017, wherein similar disallowance was deleted by the

Tribunal, copy of the decision is already placed on record. 8. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the

order of assessing officer. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and find that

TPO made adjustment on account of interest on loan advanced by

the assessee to its AE by taking view that as per Bloomberg

database the corresponding rates of interest applicable for loan

transactions is Libor plus 600 bps.The TPO examined the Bloomberg

Data based rate as it is provided LIBOR interest rates on loan based

on geographical location of both the borrowers and lender, tender of

loan, security given and interest charged. On considering the data

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) based search on Bloomberg suggested interest rate on loan

transaction at LIBOR + 600 bps. The TPO worked out / suggested

the addition of Rs. 80,59,129/-. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee

stated that similar issue / addition was made in case of assessee’s

sister concern in JSW Energy Ltd. in A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13,

however, on appeal before Tribunal the assessee was allowed relief

in IT(TP)A No. 2452 & IT(TP)A 2316/Mum/2017 we find that

ld.CIT(A) by following the decision of Tribunal deleted the addition

by taking view that course have taken a view that ALP rate of

interest in case of loan advanced to AE would be determined on the

basis of rate of interest being charged in the county where the loan

is received / consumed. Such ratio has been followed in a series of

decision. We find that assessee has already shown to have charged

interest of more than the interest rate directed in assessee’s group

case in JSW Energy Ltd. (supra). The assessee has charged interest

on LIBOR + 500 bps from February, 2013 and LIBOR + 350 bps

from April 2012. Thus, in view of aforesaid factual and legal position

we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by

assessee. 10. Ground no. 3 to 11 relates to TP adjustment on account of corporate

guarantee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits these grounds of

appeal are also covered in favour of assessee in assessee’s own case

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 wherein the appeal of revenue has been

dismissed and restricted the adjustment on corporate guarantee

commission at 0.35%. 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that there

are contrary decision wherein similar corporate guarantee,

commission has been considered @ 0.50%. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and

have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find

that TPO while suggesting the addition @ 2% on corporate

guarantee on the basis of decision of his predecessor in A.Y. 2012-

to A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee had offered similar corporate

guarantee fee on the basis of interest saved approach, which had

been accepted by ld. CIT(A) in all earlier years thus, changing the

methodology in subsequent years without any change in the fact is

erroneous. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee

held that contention of assessee that they had offered similar

corporate guarantee fee on the basis of interest saved approach,

which had been accepted by ld. CIT(A) in A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12,

which was accepted by ld. CIT(A). The revenue filed appeal before

Tribunal wherein in a common order for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 in

ITA (s) No. 4632, 5325 & 5326/M/2027 dated 30.06.2023, the

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) appeal of revenue was decided in favour of assessee. The Tribunal in

its order dated 30.06.2023 directed that transaction on corporate

guarantee fees be charged as 0.35%. Thus, we find that ld. CIT(A)

followed the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier

years. Hence, we do not find any merit in ground no. 3 to 11. In the

result, ground no. 3 to 11 are dismissed. 13. Ground No. 12 to 14 relates to deleting the disallowance of

deduction under section 80IA in respect of Rail system and Water

System. The ld AR of the assessee submits that these grounds of

appeal are also covered in favour of the assessee and again the

revenue by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.

4062, 4063, 4064 & 4086/Mum/2017 dated 30.11.2017, wherein

the order of Pr. CIT under section 263, wherein ld. CIT(A) raised

issue that claim of deduction under section 80IA on account of

Railway siding and water proof project and captive power

consumption was not verified. The Tribunal had set aside / quashed

such order of Pr. CIT under section 263. And further appeal of

revenue has not been admitted by Hon’ble High Court. 14. On the other hand the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that mere

quashing of order under section 263 is not sufficient, when the

assessee does not fulfil the condition for such allowance.

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) 15. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and

have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find

that assessing officer, in para 5.1 of assessment order has recorded

that assessee has been claiming deduction in respect of rail system

from A.Y. 2008-09 and it was allowed by assessing officer. However,

the ld. Pr. CIT-4, Mumbai revised the order from A.Y. 2008-09 to

2011-12. However, in A.Y. 2012-13, the claim of assessee for

deduction under section 80IA in respect of rail system and water

system was disallowed. The AO in A.Y. 2013-14 disallowed claim of

rail system as well as water system under section 80IA on the basis

of his predecessor. However, on appeal before ld. CIT(A), the

assessee contended that order of Pr. CIT under section 263 for A.Y.

2008-09 to 2011-12 has been quashed by Tribunal in ITA No. 4062,

4063, 4064 & 4086/Mum/2017 dated 30.11.2017. The ld. CIT(A) by

following the decision of Tribunal allowed relief to assessee in

respect of Rail system as well as water system. We find that further

appeal by revenue before High Court has not been admitted. Thus,

both the issues have attained the finality. In the result, ground no.

12 to 14 are dismissed. 16. Ground no. 15 & 16 relates to deleting disallowance under section

14A. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that these grounds of

appeal are also covered in favour of assessee by the decision of

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) Bombay High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2016)

67 taxmann.com 42 (Bombay) and by the decision of Special Bench

of Delhi Tribunal in ACIT vs Vireet Investment 82 taxmann.com 415

(SB) (Delhi Trib.). 17. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the

order of assessing officer. The ld. CIT-DR submits that suo moto

disallowance offered by assessee was not accepted by assessing

officer. The assessing officer rejected the suo moto disallowance of

Rs. 73.01 lacs and computed the disallowance as per Rule 8D. The

assessing officer allowed the set off of suo moto disallowance and

worked out the disallowance of Rs. 44.37 crore and also adjusted

the book profit under section 115JB. 18. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have

gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that

assessee has shown exempt income of Rs. 5.89 crore only. The

assessee has made suo moto disallowance of Rs. 73.01 lacs. We find

that before ld. CIT(A) the assessee contended that assessing officer

has not recorded satisfaction as to why the suo moto disallowance is

not correct before invoking Rule 8D. Correctness of suo moto

disallowance under section 14A has not been disputed by assessing

officer. The ld. CIT(A) recorded that while making disallowance of

interest expenses the AO computed interest disallowance of Rs.

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) 30.11 crore and on account of indirect expenditure, the AO

considered .5% of average value of investment which does not form

part of total income and arrived at Rs. 14.29 crore. Thereby made

total disallowance at Rs. 44.11 crore and after allowing suo moto

disallowance computed disallowance of Rs. 44.37 crore. We find that

ld. CIT(A) on considering the reserve and surplus and share capital

with assessee which is of Rs. 19,937.37 crore. The assessee has

made investment of Rs. 4636.06 crore thus, interest free funds are

in far excess to the investment made by assessee. The ld. CIT(A)

recorded that jurisdictional High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power

Limited 313 ITR 340 (Bombay) and in CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (165

ITD 659 Bom) held that when interest free funds are in far excess

comparative to investment made for tax free securities, there is a

presumption that investment which has been made in tax free

securities, has come out of interest free funds available with

assessee and hence no disallowance of interest is warranted. So far

indirect expenditure being 5.00% of average value of monthly

investment at Rs. 14.29 crore, is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) directed

that AO to compute the disallowance @ 0.5% of average value of

only those investments which yielded exempt income during the

year and also to consider suo moto disallowance and thereby

allowed part relief. We find that while given such direction, the ld.

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) CIT(A) followed the decision of jurisdiction High Court in HDFC Bank

Ltd. (supra) as well as decision of Special Bench in case of Vireet

Investments (P) Ltd. (supra). We find that while allowing part relief

to the assessee the ld. CIT(A) followed the binding precedent. Thus,

we do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A).

In the result, ground no. 15 & 16 of the appeal is also dismissed. 19. Ground no. 17 & 18 relates to allowing the deduction in respect of sale of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). The ld. AR of the

assessee submits that these grounds of appeal are also covered by

the decision of Tribunal in assesses `own case for A.Y. 2012-13 in

ITA No. 2116/M/2017 dated 04.05.2023. 20. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that for claiming deduction under Section 80IA, profits must be "derived from" the eligible business. CER is not derived from business. 21. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and

have gone through the orders of lower authorities. We find that

during the year under consideration that assessee received Rs.

17.07 crore on account of CERs. The assessee claimed deduction of

such receipt under section 80IA, the assessing officer disallowed

such claim by taking view that it has been disallowed in earlier years

and the assessee is in appeal before ld CIT(A). We find that ld

CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee on the basis of decision of

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) Tribunal in assesses own case for AY 2008-09 to 2011-12 in ITA(s)

No. 4632,5325 to 5326/M/2027, wherein the order of sister concern

of assessee in JSW Energy Limited in ITA No. 463/Mum/2014 dated

31.07.2015 was followed. Considering the facts that ld CIT(A)

allowed relief to the assessee by following decisions of Tribunal in

assesses own case and in sister concern, hence, we do not find any

infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A), which we affirm. In the result, the

ground no, 17 & 18 of the appeal are dismissed.

dismissed.

ITA No. 5189/M/2024 for AY 2014-15 by revenue. 23. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeals;

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) from case to case and that all the factors in Rule 108 have to be considered for every case and every year independently and that a rote decided in a different case for different set of facts and for different year cannot be adopted as such to the instant assessee, which would be violative of the specific provisions in Rule 10B?

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) that all the factors in Rule 10B have to be considered for every cave und every year independently and that a rate decided in a different case for different set of facts anal for different year cannot be adopted as such to the instant assessee, which would be violative of the specific provisions in Rule 10B?

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16)

17 Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in low, the Ed. CITYA) way justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,44,59,516/-u/s 28(iv) of the Act on account of write off of Project Creditors, without appreciating the facts as discussed by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order?

interest on loan advanced to AEs. We find that these grounds of

appeal are similar to the ground no. 1 & 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2013-

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) 14 which we have already dismissed by following the decision of

Tribunal in assessee’s group case in JSW Energy Ltd. vs DCIT

(supra). Thus, following the principle of consistency these grounds of

appeal are dismissed with similar observation. 25. Ground no. 3 to 11 relates to deleting transfer pricing adjustment on

account of corporate guarantee commission. We find that these

grounds of appeal are similar to the ground no. 3 to 11 in appeal for

A.Y. 2013-14 which we have already dismissed by following the

decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-

12 dated 30.06.2023. Thus, following the principle of consistency

these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar observation. 26. Ground no. 12 relates to considering the Sales Tax deferrals as

capital receipt. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that this ground

of appeal is covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own

case for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 wherein decision in assessee’s own

case for A.Y. 2006-07 reported in (2020) 180 ITD 505 (Mumbai

Trib.) was followed. 27. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that

refund was in the nature of concession and purpose test has to be

considered. Though, the ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that

there is favourable decision in assessee’s own case in earlier year.

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) 28. We find that before the assessing officer, the assessee in order to

claim Sales Tax deferrals as capital receipt relied upon the decision

of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Sujler India Ltd. vs JCIT,

which has been upheld by High Court. The assessing officer

disregarded the submission of assessee and held that the decision of

High Court in case of Sujler India has not been accepted by

department and further appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court.

We find that ld. CIT(A) while allowing the relief to the assessee

recorded that similar claim of deduction was allowed to the assessee

company by his predecessor in appeal for the AY 2013-14 and AY

2015-16. We further find that similar relief was allowed to the

assessee in a detailed discussion by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in

A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-12 (Supra) in order dated 30.06.2023. Thus,

we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A). IN

the result, ground no. 12 of the appeal is dismissed. 29. Ground no. 13 relates to excluding Sales Tax subsidy while

computing book profit under section 115JB. Considering the fact that

we have upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) on ground no. 12, hence this

ground of appeal have become infructuous. In the result, ground no.

13 is dismissed. 30. Ground no. 14 relates to deduction under section 80IA in respect of

railway system and ground no. 15 & 16 relates to deduction under

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) section 80IA in respect of water supply system. We find that these

grounds of appeal are similar to grounds no. 12 to 14 in of appeal

A.Y. 2013-14, which we have dismissed on the basis of decision of

Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 2116/m/2017

dated 04.05.2023. Thus, following the principle of consistency, these

grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar observation. In the

result, ground no. 14 to 16 are dismissed. 31. Ground no. 17 relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 29.44 crore

added under section 28(iv) on account of write off a project

creditors. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that this ground of

appeal is also covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own

case for A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No. 2116/M/2017. 32. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order

of assessing officer. The ld. CIT-DR submits that assessee has taken

a loan for purchase of asset that is plant & machinery, which has

been capitalized. If the credit balance is write off same is to be taxed

as income of assessee. 33. We have considered the submission of both the parties and find that

assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 29.44 crore as provisions no

longer required, return back in respect of project creditors. The

assessing officer brought the same to tax such provision by taking

view that credit balance on losing its character of a liability is return

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) back in the P & L A/c and to be taxed as income under section 28(iv)

of the Act. We find that in assesse’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13, the

assessing officer made identical observation while making addition

under section 28(iv) of the Act. We find that co-ordinate bench of

Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 on similar ground of

appeal and on relying upon the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s

own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No. 930/Bang/2009 dated

13.01.2017 allowed relief to the assessee. Thus, we find that this

ground of appeal is covered in favour of assessee and against the

revenue. In the result, ground no. 17 of the appeal is dismissed. 34. Ground no. 18 & 19 relates to deleting the disallowance under

section 14A and excluding from such disallowance from book profit

under section 115JB. We find that these grounds of appeal are

similar to the ground no. 15 & 16 in appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, which

we have already dismissed by following the order of assessee’s own

case or on the basis of decision of superior courts. Thus, following

the principle of consistency, these grounds of appeal are also

dismissed with similar observation. 35. In the result, appeal of Revenue for A.Y. 2014-15 is dismissed.

ITA No. 5189/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16 by Revenue 36. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in lane the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the transfer pricing 24

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) adjustment of Rs. 2,53,24,154/- on account of addition made by the transfer pricing officer towards interest on loans advanced by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises?

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) 0.35% without considering the benchmarking undertaken by the assessee and the benchmarking undertaken by the TPO?

10.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the fee for the guarantee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by the AE should be fixed at 0.35% placing reliance upon the decision other cases, which is in violation of provisions of Rule 10B of IT Rules as credit ratings and the interest rate vary every year?

11.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the fee for the guarantee issued by the instant assessee for the loans availed by the AE should be fixed at 0.35% placing reliance upon the decision in other cases, without adopting any of the methods prescribed in Section 92C which is violation of law?

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) 12.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act, by overlooking the computational procedure prescribed in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which must be followed for making any disallowance u/s. 14A?

13.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lave, the Ld. CIT(A). Mumbai, erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 144 of the Act from the total income on the grounds of non- application of mind as a quasi-judicial authority while recording dissatisfaction as required u/s 144, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer provided detailed reasoning in paragraph 7 of the assessment order while invoking Rule 8D r.w.r. 14A? Furthermore, the CIT(A) failed to consider that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Lad, vs. CIT (ITA No. 616 of 2010) held that both direct and indirect expenditures must be considered for determining the expenditure disallowable u/s 14A, and affirmed the constitutional validity of the Rules framed?

14.Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in lave, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the gain on prepayment of Sales Tax deferrals of Rs. 441,08,53,217/- as Capital Receipt ignoring the fact that the gain of prepayment of Sales tax was in the nature of incentive/concession and revenue in nature as per the purpose test of Government of Karnataka's Scheme?

15.Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude sales tax subsidy while computing income u/s 115JB of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case?

16.Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in holding that the benefit received by the assessee on account of waiver of principal loans and interest payable is capital in nature and is not taxable while ignoring the ratio laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. T. V. Sundaram lyengar & Sons?

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) 17.Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,42,13,629/- u/s 28(iv) of the Act on account of write off of Project Creditors, without appreciating the facts as discussed by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order?

18.The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary

interest on loan advanced to AEs. We find that these grounds of

appeal are similar to the ground no. 1 & 2 in appeal for A.Y. 2013-14

which we have already dismissed by following the decision of

Tribunal in assessee’s group case in JSW Energy Ltd. vs DCIT

(supra). Thus, following the principle of consistency these grounds of

appeal are dismissed with similar observation. 38. Ground no. 3 to 11 relates to deleting transfer pricing adjustment on

account of corporate guarantee commission. We find that these

grounds of appeal are similar to the ground no. 3 to 11 in appeal for

A.Y. 2013-14 which we have already dismissed by following the

decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2008-09 to 2011-

12 dated 30.06.2023. Thus, following the principle of consistency

these grounds of appeal are dismissed with similar observation. 39. Ground no. 12 & 13 relates to deleting the disallowance under

section 14A and excluding from such disallowance from book profit

under section 115JB. We find that these grounds of appeal are

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) similar to the ground no. 15 & 16 in appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, which

we have already dismissed by following the order of assessee’s own

case or on the basis of decision of superior courts. Thus, following

the principle of consistency, these grounds of appeal are also

dismissed with similar observation. 40. Ground no. 14 relates to considering the Sales Tax deferrals as

capital receipt. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to

ground no. 12 in appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, which we have dismissed

by following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.

2008-09 to 2011-12 wherein decision in assessee’s own case for A.Y.

2006-07 reported in (2020) 180 ITD 505 (Mumbai Trib.) was

followed. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed with similar

direction. 41. Ground no. 15 relates to excluding Sales Tax subsidy while

computing book profit under section 115JB. Considering the fact that

we have upheld the order of ld. CIT(A) on ground no. 14, hence this

ground of appeal have become infructuous. In the result, ground no.

15 is dismissed. 42. Ground no. 16 & 17 relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 19.42

crore added under section 28(iv) on account of right of project

creditors. We find that this ground of appeal is similar to the ground

no. 17 of appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, which we have dismissed by

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16) following the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.

2012-13. Thus, following the principle of consistency, these grounds

of appeal are also dismissed with similar observation. 43. In the result, appeal of Revenue for A.Y. 2015-16 is dismissed.

C.O. No. 47/Mum/2025 in ITA No. 5188/Mum/2024 (AY: 2013-14) C.O. No. 48/Mum/2025 in ITA No. 5189/Mum/2024 (AY: 2015-16) C.O. No. 236/Mum/2025 in ITA No. 4223/Mum/2025 (AY: 2014-15) 44. We find that assessee has raised similar ground in its C.O. as raised

in A.Y. 2013-14. Considering the facts that we have dismissed the

appeal of revenue in all three years on merit, therefore specific

adjudication on the ground raised in C.O. has become academic.

Hence, the same are dismissed as infructuous. 45. In the result, the appeals of Revenue in A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 &

2015-16 are dismissed. C.O. by assessee in all three years has been

dismissed as infructuous.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-SS PAWAN SINGH BIJAYANANDA PURUSETH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 30/04/2026 Biswajit, Sr. PS

ITA Nos. 5188 & 5189/Mum/2024& 4223/M/2025 C.O. Nos. 47 &48/M/2025 & 236/M/2025 JSW Steel Ltd.(AY 2013-14 to 2015-16)

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar / DDO ITAT, Mumbai