, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ! BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 33 / CHNY /201 8 ( ./I.T.A. NO. 175/CHNY/2017) / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 TAKE SOLUTIONS LIMITED, NO. 27, TANK BUND ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN: AABCT 3684M ] ( /APPELLANT) VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT # /DATE OF HEARING : 05.10.2018 # /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.10.2018 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AGA INST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 175/CHNY/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13, WHEREIN, ON THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT MADE TO INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTIONS OF RS. :-2-: MP. NO.33/CHNY/2018 3,50,05,000/-, BEING 1% OF THE QUANTUM OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 350.05 CRORES, AFTER CONSIDERING TH E FACTS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE RIVAL PARTIES, IT WAS HELD, INTER ALIA, THAT CORPORATE GUARANTEE INVOLVES SERVICE RENDERED TO AE AND THEREFORE WILL COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN CLOSE BUSINESS AS SOCIATES, WHICH PROVIDES A VALUABLE COMMODITY IN THE FORM OF TAX PAYER CREDIT RATING WHICH BENEFITS THE AE IN TERMS OF INTEREST RATES. COMPENSATION, THERE FORE, WAS REASONABLY REQUIRED TO BE IMPUGNED AT ARMS LENGTH. WE FIND T HAT THE RATE APPLIED BY TPO IS REASONABLE AND HENCE THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 2. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE ON DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A , AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED SHARES OF PROF ITS FROM TAKE SOLUTIONS GLOBAL LLB AT RS. 276.90 MILLIONS ETC, THIS TRIBUNA L CONSIDERED THAT RELEVANT FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED AND HENCE REMITTED THI S ISSUE BACK TO THE AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION, FRESH AND FOR PASSING THE DUE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO, BEFORE DECIDING THIS ISSUE, SHALL AFF ORD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FI LED THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN MP NO. 33/CHNY/2018 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE IMPUGNED OR DERS WERE PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MATERIAL ON R ECORD. FROM THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COUR TS, IT IS CLEAR, THAT THE :-3-: MP. NO.33/CHNY/2018 TRIBUNALS POWER U/S. 254(2) IS NOT TO REVIEW ITS E ARLIER ORDER, BUT ONLY TO AMEND IT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM THE RECORD. AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS AN ERROR WHICH S TRIKES ONE ON MERE LOOKING AND DOES NOT NEED A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. TH E ERROR SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY EXTRANEOUS MATTER TO SHOW ITS INCORRECT NESS. IF THE VIEW ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ONE OF POS SIBLE VIEWS, THE CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY AN ERROR APPARENT O N THE FACE OF THE RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO EXACTLY POINT OUT THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, THE MP IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05 TH OCTOBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, ( /DATED: 05 TH OCTOBER, 2018 JPV #)*+,+ /COPY TO: 1. . / APPELLANT 2. )0. /RESPONDENT 3. 1 ) ( /CIT(A) 4. 1 /CIT 5. +) /DR 6. 4 /GF