TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the two assessee, but related entites, against the orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer(hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) u/s 143(3)/144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel-1 u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AYs: 2020-21 & 2021-22. 2. The Appellants, are private limited company incorporated in India, is engaged in providing technology support and information technology services and support services to affiliated companies for products and services related to computer networking and cyber security. 3. In ITA No. 5809/Del/2024 AY: 2021-22, (Appeal of Appellant no. 1) The Appellant No. 1, filed its original return of income for AY 2021-22 declaring total income of INR 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;) proposed transfer pricing adjustments amounting to INR 7,73,78,620. The Appellant aggrieved by the additions proposed in the draft assessment order filed objection before the DRP on 04 January 2024, challenging the proposed transfer pricing adjustments. 3.3The DRP vide its order dated 11 September 2024 reduced the transfer pricing additions to INR 6,70,73,930 and directed the AO to consider the said additions in the final order. 3.4 Final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) dated 30 October 2024, wherein the AO considered the reduced disallowances and passed the final order at assessed income at INR 11,77,74,081 and raised a demand of INR 56,86,940. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO has preferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for determining tax liability. As ld. DR was unable to show any specific provision which provides for filing any return or compliance to take into consideration the income after amalgamation, we consider it appropriate to restore the issue back to files of ld. AO, to take into consideration the revised computation of income submitted by the Appellant. Once the income as per amended income tax return is considered, the Ld. AO is directed to apportion / transfer the advance tax between successor entity (i.e., NWD SIPL) and NWM SIPL, as per law. 3.7 Then ld. with regard to Ground No. 8, it was submitted that the computation sheet issued by the Ld. AO along with the final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) reflects an inadvertent e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the TAR but before filing the ITR. However, sustained the addition of INR 4,10,37,602 towards employees' contribution to provident fund, relying on the Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s Checkmate Services P Ltd [143 taxmann.com 178]. 4.1 Additional evidence regarding disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) were submitted before the DRP but the DRP noted that the Appellant's technical challenge to jurisdiction was beyond its mandate. However, it directed the AO to address the aforesaid concerns in the final order, as the Appellant was not given an opportunity to present its case. 4.2 Final assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) dated 16 July 2024, wherein the AO did not consider the evidences submitted by the Assessee and conclud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but was credited to EPFO account after the due date due to technical issues on the portal. Bank statements and corresponding challans are made available from page no. 291 to 299 of Paper book depicting that the payment was made before the due date. The Co-ordinate bench in the case of FIL India Business & Research Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com 251 (Delhi- Tribunal), has held that when the Assessee had initially deposited employees contribution towards PF before prescribed due dates but due to glitches on online portal at the end of respective authorities, amounts were reversed by the bank, then assessee could not be penalized with addition on account of delayed deposits. 4.5 Accordingly we allow the appeal of assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.2 Then Ground No. 7, arises out of disallowance of payment made towards leave encashment, labor welfare fund, pension and gratuity under section 43B of the Act. Ld. Counsel has submitted that, the Appellant paid the leave encashment amount from a pre-existing liability, which was disallowed in the ROL of the relevant year. The amount was claimed as a deduction on a payment basis in the ROI. The difference between the amounts in Form 3CD and ROI is due to the liability paid after filing Form 3CD but before the ROI due date. This was submitted on the e-filing portal on 3 November 2021, in response to the intimation under section 143(1)(a) dated 7 October 202l. 5.3 Similarly, during the year, the Assessee disallowed IN 108,13,91,601 under....