Duplicate assessment quashed; transfer pricing, licence fee, TDS credit and related computations sent back for fresh review.

A third assessment order for the same assessment year was quashed as a duplicate order passed after an earlier final order. Transfer pricing issues on intra-group services and royalty payment were remanded for fresh adjudication in line with earlier tribunal directions. Support service cost, section 80G deduction, excess dividend distribution tax refund, and road tax and VAT on leased vehicles were allowed, while the licence fee claim and related interest were restored for consequential computation or verification. Short TDS credit, book profit adjustment, and interest under sections 234B and 234C were also sent back for fresh computation, and penalty initiation was held premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the third assessment order dated 30.06.2024 was a duplicate assessment liable to be quashed; (ii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment relating to intra-group services required fresh adjudication; (iii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment relating to royalty payment required fresh adjudication; (iv) whether disallowance of support service cost was sustainable; (v) whether the license fee claim was to be dealt with by amortization under the applicable statutory framework; (vi) whether interest relatable to the license fee adjustment was liable to be waived or recomputed; (vii) whether deduction under section 80G was allowable; (viii) whether refund of excess dividend distribution tax was allowable; (ix) whether road tax and VAT on leased motor vehicles were allowable as revenue expenditure; (x) whether short credit of TDS required verification and grant of appropriate relief; (xi) whether book profit adjustment and interest under sections 234B and 234C required fresh computation; and (xii) whether initiation of penalty proceedings was premature.

Issue (i): whether the third assessment order dated 30.06.2024 was a duplicate assessment liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The assessment sequence showed that a final order had already been passed on 22.02.2022 pursuant to the dispute resolution directions. The later order dated 30.06.2024 was passed again to give effect to the same directions and was therefore treated as a repeated assessment for the same assessment year.

Conclusion: The third assessment order was quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the transfer pricing adjustment relating to intra-group services required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The issue was treated as recurring and was linked to earlier years where the matter had been restored for fresh examination. The same approach was followed, with direction to the transfer pricing authority to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and the earlier tribunal directions.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for fresh consideration and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): whether the transfer pricing adjustment relating to royalty payment required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The royalty adjustment was held to require examination in the light of the earlier tribunal directions, particularly on the manner of computation and application of the percentile method under the relevant transfer pricing rule.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for fresh consideration and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (iv): whether disallowance of support service cost was sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute was treated as a recurring issue already accepted in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The tribunal followed the earlier consistent view and accepted the expenditure claim.

Conclusion: The disallowance was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): whether the license fee claim was to be dealt with by amortization under the applicable statutory framework.

Analysis: The claim was considered in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling on the nature of annual license fee and the requirement of amortization. The assessing authority was directed to work out the consequential computation accordingly.

Conclusion: The issue was restored for consequential computation and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (vi): whether interest relatable to the license fee adjustment was liable to be waived or recomputed.

Analysis: The tribunal applied the Supreme Court's waiver of interest for the relevant period and directed the assessing authority to examine the claim accordingly.

Conclusion: The issue was restored for verification and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (vii): whether deduction under section 80G was allowable.

Analysis: The claim was accepted following the earlier tribunal view that such expenditure qualified for deduction under the provision.

Conclusion: The deduction was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): whether refund of excess dividend distribution tax was allowable.

Analysis: The tribunal followed the later High Court view that excess dividend distribution tax paid in the relevant treaty context was refundable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ix): whether road tax and VAT on leased motor vehicles were allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The tribunal followed the earlier view that such charges, when incurred for leased operational assets, were allowable and could be entertained even if not claimed in the original return.

Conclusion: The expenditure was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (x): whether short credit of TDS required verification and grant of appropriate relief.

Analysis: The credit mismatch was accepted as requiring verification from the return and Form 26AS figures, with a direction to grant the correct credit if found due.

Conclusion: The matter was restored for verification and appropriate relief was directed.

Issue (xi): whether book profit adjustment and interest under sections 234B and 234C required fresh computation.

Analysis: The book profit ground was treated as consequential and the interest levy was also treated as consequential, both requiring reconsideration at the assessment stage.

Conclusion: These issues were restored for fresh computation.

Issue (xii): whether initiation of penalty proceedings was premature.

Analysis: The ground was held to be premature at the stage of appeal.

Conclusion: The ground was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part, with one assessment order quashed, several substantive additions deleted, certain claims allowed, and the remaining transfer pricing and consequential computation issues sent back for fresh examination or verification.

---