TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2.1. The Ld.AR submitted that, vide application dated 17/08/2023, the assessee raised additional ground challenging the validity of assessment order passed based on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP no. 2340 of 2021. He submitted that the assessee do not wish to press this issue at this stage. Considering the submission, the application dated 17/08/2023 challenging validity of the assessment order is not admitted. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that on merits the issues involved in the present appeals are identical to those already adjudicated by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008- 09 in ITA No. 3432/Mum/2019 & ITA No. 3995/Mum/2019, order dated 19/02/2026. He submitted that the facts and circumstances for the years under consideration remain identical and no fresh material has been brought on record by the Revenue to warrant a different view. The Ld.AR therefore contended that, in the interest of judicial consistency, the decision of the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und - Reliance placed on Shelf Drilling Ron Tapmeyer Ltd. vs ACIT (2023) (WP 2340/21) - Withdrawn ITA No. 5378/Mum/2019 (Department Appeal) Ground No. Issue 1 Deduction of training income while computing deduction u/s. 10A 2 Telecommunication expenses ought to be reduced from export turnover while computing deduction u/s. 10A 3.1 to 3.17 Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries in Singapore, Netherlands and USA 4.1 to 4.4 Notional interest receivable on delayed receivable 5.1 to 5.5 Interest undercharged in respect of loan to AEs 6.1 to 6.5 Interest charged on Capital Contribution made in AE treated as loan 7 & 8 General ground A.Y. 2012-13 ITA No. 4796/Mum/2019 (Appellant Appeal) Ground No. Issue 1 General ground - Order bad in law 2 Retention of revenue by overseas subsidiaries in Singapore, Netherlands and USA (also in Department appeal ground no.1.1 to 1.17) 3 Benefit of +/-5% variation computed on Arm's length Price 4 Allowability of additional claim of Employee compensation cost (ESOP) 5 Additional claim for foreign Taxes paid in Japan 6 (Additional ground) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....1 to 14.5 15 to 15.1 8 Interest on loan to Associated Enterprises 16 to 18.2 19 to 19.4 9 Interest on capital contribution treated as loan 20 to 21.12 22 to 22.4 10 General grounds 6 & 27 6 & 27 6.1. It is observed that the facts, functional profile of the assessee, nature of international transactions and the issues arising in the present appeals remain identical to those considered by this Tribunal in A.Y. 2008-09. The assessee is engaged in similar line of business, the nature of international transactions remains unchanged and the transfer pricing methodology adopted is also consistent with earlier years. No distinguishing feature has been brought on record by either side so as to persuade us to take a different view. 6.2. In such circumstances, in accordance with the principle of judicial consistency and in absence of any contrary material, the findings and conclusions recorded by this Tribunal in A.Y. 2008-09 (supra) are respectfully followed and applied mutatis mutandis to the grounds raised by both the assessee as well as the Revenue tabulated herein above for the years under consideration. 7. Accordingly, in the absence of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to allow the additional FTC claim of Rs. 11,518,296 as per the provisions of section 90 read with India-Japan Double Tax Avoidance Agreement, towards taxes paid by the Appellant in Japan, in respect of income doubly taxed, in India and Japan." 10.2. In respect of 2011-12 and 2012-13 in the assessee's appeal it is submitted that additional claim is raised before this Tribunal could not be raised due to non-availability of relevant judicial precedents at the time when the appeal was pending before the assessing officer. It is submitted that this issue thus has been raised before this Tribunal for the first time necessary consideration in accordance with law. 10.3. As this is a legal issue raised by the assessee and is necessary to be considered for computing the correct taxable income in the hands of the assessee, respectfully following the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NTPC vs CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 382 and decision in case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs CIT reported in (1991) 187 ITR 688 we admit additional grounds raised by the assessee before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the applications seeking admission of additional grounds filed by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statements recorded an adjustment to the retained earnings to the extent of Rs. 72, 39, 94, 907 being the total amount of employee stock options outstanding. The breakup of this has been provided by the assessee as under: Financial Year Amount in Rs. FY 2010-11 (A.Y. 2011-12) 88,46,774 FY 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13) 2,95,13,346 FY 2012-13 (A.Y. 2013-14) 7,25,25,190 FY 2013-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) 24,22,77,090 FY 2014-15 (A.Y. 2015-16) 31,34,97,583 Subsidiaries charge 5,73,34,114 Total 72,39,94,097 11.3. As a consequence of the above change, the reserves and of the assessee stood depleted/reduced by the amount of additional compensation charge due to retrospect application of the Ind AS. The Ld.AO disregarded the submissions made by the assessee and rejected the claim for assessment 2013-14 by observing as under: • That the accounting standards have no bearing as far as application of Income Tax provisions are concerned. • AS amended in A.Y. 2017-18 have no retrospective effect and even if so, on the basis of same, no claim can be entertained under the Act for want of provisions in the Act. • The claim m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the issue before this Tribunal is not an additional ground of appeal being raised for the first time either before the Ld.CIT(A) or before this Tribunal, but a new deduction being claimed for the first time before the appellate authorities. 13.3. The Ld.DR vehemently submitted that, a deduction can be claimed by filing the return of income or revised return of income or if the time for revised return is over then by making an application before the competent authority under section 119(2)(b) of the act. He submitted that the judgements nowhere say that a deduction which should have been claimed in the return of income or revised return of income or by way of application under section 119(2)(b) of the act can be claimed before this Tribunal, bypassing established procedures prescribed in the act. 13.4. He also brought the notice of this Tribunal that an interpretation of the decisions by Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to herein above has allowed making claims of deduction before this Tribunal for the first time created distinction between class of assessee who is in appeal and vis-a-via those who is not in appeal. He submitted that conferring greater rights on an assessee wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgement is reproduced hereunder- "However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 5. The aforesaid observation in Goctze (supra) makes it vivid that the ratio of the judgement has no relevance in construing the width of the ITAT's powers in entertaining additional claims of deductions. 6. As regards argument in) of the Id. DR that only those claims can be entertained which emanate from the return of income, it is submitted that such argument is in the teeth of several judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts. A few judgements dealing with this very aspect are adverted to hereunder. 7. In the case of Pruthvi Brokers (supra), the assessee sought to make a fresh claim for deduction u/s. 43B otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. The question before the High Court was "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in law, was right in holding that a claim of deduction not made in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pending, it is found that non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, there is no reason why the parties should be prevented from raising the question for the first time before the Tribunal. 10. In the case of Jai Parabolic (Del), the assessee, by way of an additional ground filed before the CIT(A) claimed a deduction of expenditure classified as deferred revenue expenditure in the Balance Sheet and which was not claimed in the return. The said claim was allowed. On the Department's appeal challenging the admissibility of such claim, it was held by the High Court that the appellate authorities are entitled to entertain new claims and that Goetze (supra) does not denude such power in any manner. 11. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) (187 ITR 688) (SC), the assessee raised a claim for deduction of purchase tax by way of an additional ground before the AAC for the first time, without making such claim in the return of income. Upholding the admissibility of such clam, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under "for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Getinge Medical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2026) (ITA 4872/Mum/24) wherein it has been held that section 119(2)(b) does not operate as a fetter on the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal which exercises its powers in terms of section 254 of the Act. 15. The fourth argument of the Id. DR that permitting an assessee to raise an additional ground before the ITAT would create two unequal classes of assessees is equally misplaced. Different assessees may be differently placed and may have different modes of redressal available under the Act. The right to raise additional grounds is a remedy available to an assessee, in whose case an appeal is pending before an appellate authority. On the other hand, in the case of an assessee where no addition is made and, therefore, no appellate proceedings are pending, the Act provides for an alternative mechanism under section 119(2)(b) to seek condonation of delay and appropriate relief from the CBDT Thus, both categories of assessees are provided distinct but adequate remedies under the Act, depending on their respective set of facts. The di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectly determine the taxable income in accordance with law, and there can be no estoppel against statute. This Tribunal in the case of Getinge Medical India Pvt. Ltd.(supra), relied upon by the Ld.AR, also supports the proposition that section 119(2)(b) does not operate as a fetter on the appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 14.4. We find no merit in the contention of the Ld.DR that an additional claim must necessarily emanate from the return of income or the assessment order. Such a proposition stands directly negated by the aforesaid binding precedents, which clearly recognize the right of the assessee to raise a new claim before the appellate authorities, even if the same was available at the time of filing the return but was not so claimed. In fact, Hon'ble Courts have consistently held that a legitimate claim cannot be shut out on mere technicalities, particularly when all necessary facts are already on record. 14.5. The argument of the Ld.DR that section 119(2)(b) provides the sole remedy is equally untenable. The said provision operates in an altogether different field and merely empowers the CBDT to condone delay in certain cases of genuine hardship. It does not cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f income on account of non-availability of the requisite quantification, which arose only subsequently due to the change in accounting policy pursuant to the introduction of Ind AS and the consequent adoption of the fair value method. For Assessment Year 2013-14, it is an admitted position that the assessment proceedings were still pending before the Ld. AO at the relevant time, and the assessee had, in fact, raised the claim during the course of assessment proceedings. However, the same came to be rejected by the Ld. AO placing reliance on the decision in Goetze (India) Ltd. Thus, the assessee was prevented from having its claim adjudicated on merits at the assessment stage, thereby justifying the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in entertaining and adjudicating the same. 14.10. In such circumstances, the assessee had no occasion to raise the claim before the Ld.AO, and therefore, the only efficacious remedy available was to raise the same before the appellate authorities. The claim is thus bona fide, arises from the material on record, and its consideration is necessary to determine the correct taxable income in accordance with law. Denying such a claim on a mere technicality would res....