Aquity Solutions India (P) Ltd v Dy CIT

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax PublishersITA No 713/Mum/2022 2022 TaxPub(DT) 7026 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR, V.P. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. Aquity Solutions India (P). Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ITA No. 713/Mum/2022 2 November, 2022 Assessee by: Harsh Shah Revenue by: Samruddhi D. Hande ORDER *Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.* The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment Order, dt. 21-2-2022, passed under section 144C(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year 2017-18, pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, Mumbai (learned DRP), under section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment Order, dt. 21-2-2022 is non-est, as the same has been passed beyond the time prescribed by section 144C(13) of the Act, thus liable to be quashed in-limine. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/ the learned assessing officer (AO) under directions of the Honble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,26,43,352 to the total income of the Appellant on account of interest chargeable on trade receivables in relation to the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / the learned assessing officer under directions of the Honble DRP erred in treating outstanding trade receivables as a separate international transaction undertaken by the assessee without any material in support thereof. Trade receivables were incidental to the main sale transaction, which were held to be at arms length, hence no separate benchmarking was required for benchmarking the trade receivables. 4. Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / the learned assessing officer under directions of the Honble DRP erred in not appreciating that no addition was warranted on account of delay in realization of trade receivables as: SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersITA No 713/Mum/2022
2022 TaxPub(DT) 7026 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

PRAMOD KUMAR, V.P. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

Aquity Solutions India (P). Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

ITA No. 713/Mum/2022

2 November, 2022

Assessee by: Harsh Shah

Revenue by: Samruddhi D. Hande

ORDER

Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment Order, dt. 21-2-2022, passed under section 144C(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year 2017-18, pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, Mumbai (learned DRP), under section 144C(5) of the Act.

2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment Order, dt. 21-2-2022 is non-est, as the same has been passed beyond the time prescribed by section 144C(13) of the Act, thus liable to be quashed in-limine.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/ the learned assessing officer (AO) under directions of the Honble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,26,43,352 to the total income of the Appellant on account of interest chargeable on trade receivables in relation to the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its AE.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / the learned assessing officer under directions of the Honble DRP erred in treating outstanding trade receivables as a separate international transaction undertaken by the assessee without any material in support thereof. Trade receivables were incidental to the main sale transaction, which were held to be at arms length, hence no separate benchmarking was required for benchmarking the trade receivables.

4. Without prejudice, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO / the learned assessing officer under directions of the Honble DRP erred in not appreciating that no addition was warranted on account of delay in realization of trade receivables as: