Duplicative assessment order quashed; delay condoned, and multiple tax disallowances and transfer pricing issues remitted or allowed.

A later assessment order for the same assessment year cannot survive where a final assessment order has already been passed in conformity with DRP directions; the duplicative order was quashed. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned on the explanation that the earlier order had not been served in time. Transfer pricing issues concerning intra-group services and royalty were remitted for fresh examination, while support service expenditure was allowed on consistency and the licence fee and related interest issues were restored for reconsideration. Deduction under section 80G, road tax and VAT on leased vehicles, excess dividend distribution tax credit, and short TDS credit were allowed. Book-profit computation and interest under sections 234B and 234C were remitted, and penalty initiation was held premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the later assessment order dated 30.06.2024, passed for the same assessment year after an earlier final assessment order had already been passed pursuant to the DRP directions, amounted to duplication of assessment and was liable to be quashed; (ii) whether the delay in filing the appeal against the earlier assessment order deserved condonation; (iii) whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of receipt of intra-group services and payment of royalty required interference or restoration for fresh adjudication; (iv) whether disallowance of support service expenditure, licence fee claim, and waiver of consequential interest called for relief; (v) whether the denial of deduction under section 80G and the disallowance of road tax and VAT on leased motor vehicles were sustainable; (vi) whether credit for excess dividend distribution tax and short grant of TDS credit was to be allowed; and (vii) whether the issues of book-profit computation, interest under sections 234B and 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings warranted interference.

Issue (i): whether the later assessment order dated 30.06.2024, passed for the same assessment year after an earlier final assessment order had already been passed pursuant to the DRP directions, amounted to duplication of assessment and was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The later order was passed for the same assessment year after an earlier final assessment order had already been made. Once a final assessment order had already been passed in conformity with the DRP directions, a second order on the same assessment for the same year could not survive. The later order was, therefore, treated as a duplicative assessment.

Conclusion: The later assessment order was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the delay in filing the appeal against the earlier assessment order deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed belatedly because the earlier order had not been served on the assessee for a long time and was served only along with the subsequent order. The explanation was accepted as sufficient cause for the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of receipt of intra-group services and payment of royalty required interference or restoration for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The issue of intra-group services had been dealt with in earlier years by directing fresh examination by the Transfer Pricing Officer, and the same course was followed here. The royalty adjustment was also directed to be re-examined in the light of the earlier year's directions, including the applicable percentile-based computation.

Conclusion: Both transfer pricing issues were sent back for fresh consideration and were allowed for statistical purposes, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (iv): whether disallowance of support service expenditure, licence fee claim, and waiver of consequential interest called for relief.

Analysis: The support service expenditure issue was accepted on the strength of the consistent view taken in earlier years. The licence fee claim was to be examined in the light of the governing Supreme Court ruling on amortisation, and the consequential interest issue was to be considered accordingly.

Conclusion: Relief was granted on support service expenditure, and the licence fee and interest issues were allowed for statistical purposes, in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (v): whether the denial of deduction under section 80G and the disallowance of road tax and VAT on leased motor vehicles were sustainable.

Analysis: The deduction under section 80G was allowed following the view accepted in earlier year proceedings. The road tax and VAT paid on leased vehicles were also held allowable as revenue expenditure in line with the earlier year's approach.

Conclusion: Both claims were allowed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): whether credit for excess dividend distribution tax and short grant of TDS credit was to be allowed.

Analysis: The claim for refund or credit of excess dividend distribution tax was accepted following the cited binding precedent. The short grant of TDS credit was also directed to be corrected on verification of the return and tax credit statements.

Conclusion: Relief was granted on both issues, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): whether the issues of book-profit computation, interest under sections 234B and 234C, and initiation of penalty proceedings warranted interference.

Analysis: The book-profit computation issue was remitted for correction as a computational matter. The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also restored for verification. The penalty initiation issue was premature.

Conclusion: The book-profit and interest issues were restored, and the penalty ground was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained substantial relief: the duplicative later assessment was struck down, delay was condoned, several additions and disallowances were either allowed or restored for reconsideration, and only the penalty ground failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a final assessment order has already been passed for a year pursuant to DRP directions, a subsequent order for the same year on the same assessment cannot stand and is liable to be quashed as a duplicative assessment.

---