Telangana Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Pratima Gottumukkala, D/o. G v. N. Raju, aged about

Compliance Report (ACR) in Form 3CEF confirming that it has satisficd / fulfilled al1 the relevant and applicable terms and conditions of the APA, u,ithin 90 days of entering into the APA. The said ACR is forwarded to the competent authorit_v, Commissioner of Income-tax and Transfer Pricing Officer (for short, "TPO'). As per para 11 of the APA, it requires tl're TPO to undertake audit of ACR in accordance rvitl'r Rule lOP oi the Rules and furnish a report to the Director General of Income Tax (DGIT) within six months f ( from the end of the month in which the ACR is received by the TPO. In the said audit report, the jurisdictional TPO is required to mention its findings as regards the compliance by the assessec. Subsequently, the DGIT forwards the report to CBDT only in case there is a failure on the part of asscssee to comply u,ith the terms of the APA. Accordingly, the petitioner filed its Modified Return of Income under 7 Section 92CDi1) read s,ith Section 139 of the Act on

28.03.2023. Lrrter, the petitioner also filed statlrtory Form 3CEF on 31.0:r,.2023 (Ex. l0) 7: Subsequ,:ntl_v, another notice under Section 143(21 ot the Act, dat<'d 17 .11.2023 (trx.15) was issued to the petitioner callLng for explanation in relation to tq,o issues lbr u,hich assess.nent \,\.as reopened. In response to the said show cause n:,tice, the petitioner liled its submissions dated

23.11.2023 (tix. 16) r.r,herein it has once again t-xplained at point No.9 tl-re basis lor not oflering additional in<:ome in the modified retu:n of income.

8. Later, zrgzrin the Assessment Unit/respondent No.1 issued slrou r:ause notice dated 22.11.2023 (Ex I 7) pointing out that tht: ril income pursuant to APA was not supported with docum e ntary e\ridence and called upon tl-re petitioner to furnish dr'terils by 29.11.2023. In the meanwhile, the Assessmenl. Jnit/ respondent No. 1 issued arrother shou, cause notice Certed 28.11.2023 proposing an adjustment of Rs.106,47,0C 730 / - io relation to modified return allegedly in pursuancr: of APA. It is stated that the petitioner had \ \ 3 already filcd the requisite documentary evidence and once again furnished necessaly documents and filed its submissions dated 04.12.2023 (Ex. 19). Without considering the submissions and the documents already on record, the Assessment Unit/ respondent No. 1 passed the impugned reassessment order by making the following additions/deletions dated 16.01 .2024 (Ex.2O): a. Accepted that no disallowalce of deduction under Section SOG pertaining to CSR donation could be made; b. Disallowed cmployecs contribution to PF (which was already disallowed in Intimation order under Section 143(1) and the appeal against such order was alrcady dismissed and acccpted by thc petitioner by remittance of corresponding taxes); c. Adjustment relying on the APA of Rs.1O6,47,O0,730 /-. Challenging the abo\/e reassessment order dated

16.O1.2024, the instant \\'rit petition is filed.

9. The list of chronological dates and events, as born from the record, are furnished in the following tabular chart submitted by the petitioncr: Date I

30. I 1.20 18

24.O2.2020 Event Original Retllrn of Income (Rol) for the Assessment Ycar 2018 19 Original Rol processed vide Intimation u/s 143(l) of thc lncornc-tari Act, 1961 in terms of q,hich a disallo\\,ancc rvas macle u/s 36{1)(va) of the Act on t \ () I account of dela_v in emplovee contribution to provident 'fund.

23.O3.20t!2 I 30.o3.20it2

31.03.20tt3

24.o3.2023 thc asscssment 07 .o4 .2022 07 .o4.2022 04.o5.'2022 rs.o2.'2023

25.02.2021 iAssessment Order under Section 143(.lJ of the Act i passed accepting the rcturned incomc as assessed rncome Notice under Section 1.18A(b) of the Act issued stating reasons for re-opening Response ftled to notice uncler Section 148A(b) of the Act ssed under Section t48A(d) of tL.c Act Order Notice under Section 148 of the Act rvas issued Rol filed in res nse to Notice Advance Pricing Agrcement (APA) $'as en:ered b] the petitioner with the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT) for the Assessment Years, 2016 17,2Ol7-18 and 20 l8- 19. Modihed return und(,r Section 92CD of the Act was fiied ursuant to the At)A Annual Compliance R(.port (ACR) in accordance q.ith Rule l0-O o[ the fncome tax Rules. 1962 filed in the prescribed Form No.3CUF- to thc P.rncipal Chief Commissioner of Incomc-ta-x (lnternational Taxation), rvho will send one copy to the Transler l'ricing Officer (TPO) having the jurisdiction over thc petitioner as rescribed under the said Rule Notice under Section 143(2) of the Aot issued in connection with re-assessmcnt Response hlcd in respor.rse to Notice urder Section 143 2 of the Act Order passed by the CIT{A) ur.}der Section 25O of the Act dismissing the Appeal filed b_r' t:re petitioner against the intimation issucd under Section 143(1), thereby sustaining the disallor\.ance uDder Section 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of dcla-v.' rn depositing the emplo)ee contribution to the Provident Fund before due date of fund Notice u nder Section I +21 Res First shorl causc noticc was issucd Response filed to notrcc under Sectiorr l3(2) of the I Acl pointing out ho\\ no adjustm(:nt rs rct.uired vis-d- vis any of th(. items menl ioned in lhe Jhow cause notice I S".on,t shos ( ausc noricc \vas issrre.l Res onse to thc shorv causc notices was 1,led Impugned order was passed under Sccticn 147 read with Section l44B of the Act nse to Notice under Section 142 1rl ,,j the Act

05.10.2023 25.10.2023 l7.t,t.2023 23.11.2023 I ) of the Act 31 .O7 .2023 roceedin I | I X.l t ZOll 04.1,2.2023 16.ot.2021 l zs oo zo23 06.07.2023 \ i0 Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioneri

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has advanced fii,e propositions challenging the validitl' of the impugned reassessment ordcr. I- II ln view of the fact that there was no adverse report of non-compliancc with the terms of the APA issued by the TPO/CBDT, the Respondent No. I was bound to accept the modified return filcd under Section 92CD and he had no jurisdiction to rnakc any adjustment/ addition to thc incomc disclosed in such modified return; Sanction/approval obtained for reopening of the assessment $'as not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act and as a result the Assessment Order dated 16 Jarruary 2024 was void, bad in law and of no legal effectl I II Lack of jurisdiction lirr issuc of Notice under Section la8A(b) of the Act and Notice under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdiction:rl Assessing Officer when the taw required that thc said proceedings be undertaken by the Faceless Asscssing Officer IFAO'] in terms of the Notification No. l8 of 2022 i-e. e-Assessment of Inconrc Escaping Assessment Schcme, 2022 issued by the CBDT as per section 15 I A of the Act; IV. Reopcning is not justificd in respcct of a further issue, when the issues sct olrt in lhe reasons recorded for I I reopening are dropped/have not resultcd assessrnent of alleged escaped income; and ln aI Without prejudice to the above, erroneous computation of the ,\LP based on the erroneous interpretation of the APA h:rs been made by the Respondent No. 1. 1I. In support of the first proposition, learned Senior Counsel for thr-. petitioner has submitted that upon entering into an APA on 75.02.2023 (pgs.83 - 118 of the petition), the petitioner in terms of Section 92CD(1 ) of the Act, $'hich covered the lear under consideration, filed zr modified return of incorne on 28.03.2023 (pg.399 of the petition) and also filed ACR in Form 3CEF on 31.03.2023 (pgs.119 - 249 of the petition) as prescribed in Rule 1O-O of the Income tax Rules, 1962 (l'rereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). As per Rule lOP of the Rules, the TPO is the onll' authorit.v vested \ rith the powor to audit the Form 3CEF. The respondent No.1/assessing authority is bound to accept the ALP of an international t ransaction in accordance lr,ith the APA. The respondent No.l does not have the power to make an addition or vary the ALP of an international transaction. In terms of Rule 1OP, upon entering into the APA and filing ot the ACR, the 'IPO is required to furnish his auclit report to I the Director General of [ncome-tax (lnternational Taxation) (DGIT)(IT) u,ithin six months lrom the end of the month in which the ACR is received mentioning his findings AS regards compliance ol tl-re APA b1' tl-re pctitioner. In cases where the TPO's audit report suggests that there is non- compliance of the terms and conditions ol APA, the DGIT shall forvvard such report to the CBDT u'hen cancellation is required. The ACR, in the instant case, was filed on

31.O3.2023 and as such six months period to complete the audit of ACR ended on 3O.O9.2023. Till date, the petitioner has not received anv commurlication regarding the ACR nor has received any adverse report from the TPO or any appropriate authority nor does the respondent state that any adverse report has been received from the TPO or other appropriate authorit),. In such a case, the respondent No.1 is mandated to accept the modified return filed in pursuance of the APA and complete the reassessment as per Section 92CD of the Act. [t is also pointed out that as per Section 92CD of the Act. modified return has to be filed within a period of three months from the end of the month in lvhich the said agreement u'as entered into, a modified I I l-l return in acc:rrdance with and limited to the agreenrent. Therefore, the respondent No. I wrongly assumed jurisdiction bv not accepting the modified return and making the inrpugned assessment based on his erroneous interpretation of the APA. The respondent No. 1 failed to appreciate tha t the TPO is vested with the por,r'er to audit the ACR. The respondent No.1 is not vested with independent jtrrisdiction to interpret the APA and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the petitioner has satisliecl the terms and conditions of the APA. It is further submitted that if the jurisdictional TPO upon audit of the compliance report submil Led by the petitioner, submits auclit report to the DGIT (lT). the DGIT 0T) shall forward the report to the CBDT where there is a finding of failure on the part of the assessee to c:omply with the terms of the agreement and cancellation of the agreement is required in terms of Rule t ,| 10P(3) of the Rules. The CBDT shall cancel tht: agreement for the reasoir that the compliance audit referrecl to in Rule 1OP has resulted in the finding of faiiure on the part of the assessee to comply with the terms of the agreement in terms of Rule 1OR(1)(i) of the Rules. l-1

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for Assessment Years 2016- 17 and 2017 18, similar modified returns liled pursuant to APA were accepted by the respondents without an). addition/dispute (pgs.197-2O2 of the convenience compilation). For determining the ALP in an intcrnational or specified domestic transaction, the Assessing Oflicer if he considers it necessa{/ or expedient to do so, hc ma}' refer the computation of ALP in relation to such an international or specified domestic transaction to the TPO, as per Section 92CA(1) of the Act. it is also submitted that even rn a case where the APA has not been entered into, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the ALP of the international or specified domestic transaction on the basis of the material or information or document available r.vith him provided an opportunitv is given to the assessee lvhy such ALP not be determined bv him. The CBDT has issued an instruction No.3 of 2016, dated 10.03.2016 Lo reconcile the provisions ol Sections 92CA(3) and 92CA(1 ) for proper administration of the Act s,hich inter alia contain the ) J l5 detailed guidr'lines for implementation of th,: tralsfer pricing pror.isions. It requires the Assessing Oflicer to mandatorily rt:fer to the TPO for determination of ALP ol international r:r specified domestic transaction. Reference is made to paras; 3.2, 3.3, 3.5 and 3.7 of the said Circular. It is submitted tl-rzL[, therefore, the respondent No.1 r:rred in not accepting thr' modified return of income under Seclion 92CD of the r\ct. He had no jurisdiction to ver:ify the ALP since the juris;dictional TPO is vested with the pou,er to do so. The resporrdent No. 1 could not have made an_y addition to the incorn<: of the petitioner based on the terms of APA. Respondent llo. 1 failed to appreciate that in th,:: absence of an1, adverst: t'eport from the TPO/CBDT, it had to hold that the petitioner had complied with the terms of the APA and no addition c:rn be made to the modified return of income.

13. ln supl>ort of the second proposition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted thrLt the ordcr dated 0'l.0 1.11022 issued under Section 14BA(d) ol the Act and the notiie dated 07.O4.2O22 under Section 148 of the Act, both relluire approval of the specified authoritl-. But I6 such approval has been obtained lrom thc Principal CIT, Hyderabad-2, though as per Section 151 of the Act, as applicable, the specified authority for issuance of notice under Section 148 and the Order under Section 148A(d) ol the Act, which are dated 07.04.2022, wiich is beyond a period of three years from the end of the assessment yea-r 2018 19, is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director Genera-l or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, the Chief Commissioner or the Director General. The prior approval has been obtained from PCIT, Hyderabad-2, lr,h o is the not the specified authority under Section i 51 of the Act. ln support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placcd upon the case in Vodafone ldea Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, rendered b5,' the Bomba-r High Court in W.P.No.2768 of 2022, decided on 06.O2.2024, which has relied upon the decision in the case of Siemens Financial Services (Private) Limited vs. DCIT2. Learnccl Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, therefore, the reopening is invalicl as the respondent No.l ) 120231 I54 ta-xmann.com 159 (Bom) )" ) d, t1 has not obtirined prior approval from the concerned specified auth Drity.

14. ln supl:ort of the third proposition, i.t:., lack of jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in reopening assessment, it is submitted that the proceedings can be undertaken only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) rn lerrns ol Notification No.1B of 2022 i.r:., e Assessmenl of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 issued b1, the CBDT as per Section 151A of the Act. ln the instant casLr, a notice dated 07 .O4.2022 under Sectior-r l48 of the Act hi- s been issued by the JAO holdir-rg charge of Circle B( 1 ), H ' derabad and not the FAO. Therefore, it is not in accordanc: s'ith the e-Assessment of Incorne trscaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 issued by the CBDT vide Notification ho.i8 of 2022 irt terms of Section I5I A of the Act. Therefor(r, the impugned reassessment proceedings are invalid and a'c. to be quashed. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered irr the case of the petitioner for Assessment Years 2015-16 anc[ 2016-17 vide judgment dated 14.09.2023 on 18 similar set of facts. The notice under Section 148 of tl-re Act was issued by the JAO instead of FAO q,as quashcd. [t is further submitted that the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent Department against the judgment W.P.No.23573 of 2024 has been dismissed bv the Honble Supreme Court on 16.07.2025 in S.L.P. (C) No.33956 of

2025. Therefore, post introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, respondent No.2 being the JAO ri':rs precluded from conducting the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, notice dated 07 .O4.2022 issued under Scction 148 of the Act by the JAO being a non-faceless manner rs without jurisdiction.

15. Learned Senior Counsel lor the petitioner, in support ol the fourth proposition, has submitted that in respect ol a further issue, which \^'as not set out in the reasons recorded lor reopening and r,r,hich has been dropped, no reopening was permissible. The reasons for which reassessment $'as reopened as per Notice dated 23.03.2022 under Section 14BA(b) of the Act were as under: f ( l9 Disallowance under Section Rs.7,ti9,84,973/ - on account contribution to provident fund; altd 36(1)(va) of emplo'yee b. Deducti,rn under section SOG on account of it being a contribu tion / donation to CSR.

16. The petitioner, vide its letter dated 30.03.2022 had pointed out th.rt the disallowance under Section :36(1)(va) of the Act had a . readv been made in the Intimation dated

24.O2.2O2O issued under Section 1a3(l) of the Act. This disaliowance ',','as upheld by the CIT vide order dated 3\ .O7 .2023 in vier.r' of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thc crLse of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra). [t is sr,Lbmitted that the petitioner has deposited the additional tax r-lpon demand being raised by the I)epartment pursuant to t he said disallowance towards contribution made to the provident fund. Thus, the issue h:rs reached finalitl, and thr: same could not be added again.

17. On the issue of deduction under Section 8OG of the Act pertaininEi to CSR donation, the petitioner had relied on various decisj,rns on the subject, .,r.herein varioLts Benches of the [nconre Ta-x Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had r{lowed the l0 said deduction. lt is submitted that no addition can be made in the reassessment dated 16.O1.2024 uls-a uis either of the two issues for which the assessment was reopened. The only addition made in the impugned order is pertaining to an arm's length adjustment on the international transaction entered into by the petitioner with its Associated Enterprises. Therefore, the mair-r issue on which reopening u,as done ceases to exist/survive, reassessment proceedings could not be independer-rtly carried on for other issues. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the respondent No. 1 is bad in law. In this regard, he has rclicd upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Limited3, the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sunlight Tour and Travels (P) Limiteda. In viern' of the aforesaid circumstances and the judicial precedents cited, the reopening is bad in law as the issues raised on which reopening was initiated ceased to exist. 3 [2011] 331 ITR 236 (t3ombay) (paras l5 to i7] I 12024) 169 t.Ltmann.com 673 (l)clhi)

18. Learned lienior Counsel for the petitioner has sought to drar.r' ttie attention of this Court to erroneous computation of the ALP based on the erroneolls interpretation of the APA by the respondent No.1, in support of the lilth prooosition raised above. It is submitted that for the other t\.\,o 'i/ears covered by the very salne APA i.e.. the Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the respondent No.1 vide c,-dcr dated 30.O3.2024 and 1,.l3.12.2024 respectively, h as accepted the modified return of income filed by the p(rtitioner. These orders were recei'i,ed by the petitioner post filing of the instant writ petition. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has grossly erred in computing l.hc operating expenses and operatt ng revenue for arriving at the ALP which is not in accordanr:e rvith the terms agreed as per the APA. He submits that for all the above reasonr;. the impugned order of reassessrnent clated \

16.OI.2024 pi-.ssed under Section 147 of the Act carnot be sustained arrd therefore, relief prayed for may be granted. Submissions of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department:

19. In reply to the five propositions of law raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department has inter alia made the following submissions:

20. The Petitioner, M/s.Deloitte Consulting India Private Limited (PAN: AABCDO4T6HI has filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2O1B-19 on 3O. 1 1.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.720,43 ,7O,98O l-. However, the same was revised under Section 143(l) ol the Act, dated 24.O2.2O2O by making additions of Rs.7,89,84,O31/- against delayed payment of provident fund, thereby resulting a tax demand of Rs.2,82,2O,44O1-. The assessee appealed before CIT(A) against order passed under Section 143(1) on 24.O2.2O2O but the Ld. CIT(A) vide order under Section 250 of the Act, dated 31 .O7 .2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

21. The case of the assessee lirm has been selected for Complete Scrutiny under Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) lor the follor,r,ing reasons: I I I 1l LzLrge any other amount allowable as deduction claimed in Schedule BP of the return. Non-compliance to income computation and disclosure standards. Lower amount disallowed u/s 4o(a)(ia) in ITR (Part AO-l) in comparison to audit report. Deduction from Total Income (Chapter VI-A) Business ITR.

22. Accordinl;1,v, a Notice under Section la3(2) and Notice under Sectior: I42(i) of the Act had been issued to the assessee and in response the relevant submisslons were given by the a:rsessee and the same were considered and the return of incorle \\,as accepted.

23. Subsequently it is observed by audit party that employee contributions of provident fund amounting to Rs.7,89,84,97i\l- was remitted beyond the due dates by the assessee company, however, the same lvas not added back to the returned income. Hence, the said arnount needs to be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Further, the audit party observed that as per the P&L account and computation statement, the assessee company debited an amount of Rs.9,80,26,O42 / - towards CSR expenditure (which was incurred by way of donations given to various l.+ orgar,izattor,s) and an amount of Rs.57,79,894/- towards Donations. Hou,ever, the assessee claimed the entire CSR expenditure of Rs.9,80,26 ,O42 / - as Donations and claimed the deduction of 5Oo/" of the expenditure l. e. Rs.4,90,i3,021 l- under Section BOG of the Act in the computation statement under Chapter VIA deductions

24. Therefore, a shou,cause notice under Section 1a8A@) of the Act was issued Lo the assessee on 23.03.2022 and tn response the assessee replied vide letter dated 30.O3.2022. The same was perused and not accepted by the Assessing Officer and it was established that the case was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. In response to notice issued under Section 148 dated 07 .O4 .2022, tL,e assessee liled return of incomc in ITR 6 on 04 .O5.2O22 declaring total income of Rs.720,43,7O,98O l- after claiming deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.5,76,56,943 l- and claimed a refund of Rs.2,730/-. Accordingly, notice under Section U3(21 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 29 .06 .2023 fixing the case for hearing on 06 .O7 .2023. ) J ,l l-i

25. On perusal of the records it seen that the assessee company lrled its return under Section 92CD on 2t1.O3.2023 in ITR-6 declarir-rg gross total income ol Rs.726,2(),27,92O / and total income of Rs.720,43,7O,98O l- aftcr getting deduction undt:r chapter VIA of Rs.5,76,56 ,943 l- [Part-B of chapter VI-A of Rs.5,19,02,970/- under Section BOG & Part- C of Chapter V -A of Rs.57,53,973/- under Section BOJ.IAA] in response to Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreenrent under Section 92CC tf the Act dated 15.02.2023 claiming a relund of Rs.3,4 1,63,1,t9O I -. The book proiit under Section 1 l5JB of the Act is shov,,n at Rs.664,48 ,05,234 /-. [t ma-r, tr: seen that the total incorne declared under Section 92CD is the total income declar':d in the return ol income fiied ur',1er Section 139 of the Ac',

26. On perr-tsal of clause 20(b) ol the TAR it is seen that the assessee had paid employee's contribution t o provident fund of Rs.'/,89,84,973/- beyond the due clate of the respective I:rrn. in violation ol the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with Section 2Qalg) or the Act. The assessee sul-rmitted that it didn't make anv addition in the l(r modified return liled on 28.03.2023 as the effect to be given in the modilied return was onlv ln respect of Tralsfer Pricing adjustments giving eflect to Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement. It is stated that it computed additional income tax with reference to lhe delav m em p1o1,gs s' contribution to provident fund and stated that the same had been paid as self-assessment taxes and disclosed in modified return. The company had u,ithdrawn its appeal before CIT(A) pursuant to Hon'blc Supreme Court ruling in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited (supra) In view of the acceptance of the assessee, Rs.7,89,84,97 3 /- was added to the total income of the ASSESSCC.

27. It is submitted, with reference to International Related Party Tralsactions in Services/ modification of income as per the APA under Section 9CD ol the Act, that on perusal of Appendix V of the APA betu'een CBDT and the M/s Deloitte Consulting India Private Limited, it is seen that the amount of the notional cost to be considered as per Para 1(b)(i) of the Agreement for the APA Years is mentioned at 11 Rs. 109,95,11,c-t77 l- for the Financial Year re'levant to Assessment Year 2018- 19.

28. As per the modified computation, revisecl operating cost is compr-Lted at Rs.35,22,37,61,3O81- and modified operating prc,fit @ l7o/o have been computed at Rs.598,8O,3!),,1221-. Thus, the revised operating revenue as I)Cr APA COMES Rs.412 1,l B,OO,73Ol- Rs.35,22,37,61 ,3OB/- + Rs.598,80,39,4221 l. It has alreadv been mentiont:d herein above that as per audited fina-rrcials the export re\ienue from services is shown at Rs.40 1,47 1 lakh or Rs.4O 4,71,OO,OOOl-. Thus, there is a djfference of Rs. 106,47,O0 ,'?30 / - IRs.4 1 2 1, I 8,00,730,/- Rs.4O 14,71,00,0OO/-l between the modified operating re\/enue anrl the export revenue from services declared in the audited financials which should have been added to i total incom(: of the assessee company in its modllied return of income.

29. ln vieu, rrf the above, a show cause notice was issued to the assessoe on 28.11.2023 requesting to explain as to $rhy Rs. 106,4'7,OO,730/- shall not be added to total income )(' declared in the return liled under Sectior-r 148 of the Act or in the modified return filed by the assessee. In response, the assessee furnished explaration but the same was not accepted by the Assessing Officer.

30. In view of the above, Rs. 106,47,OO,73O I - [Rs.4121,18,OO,730 l- Rs.40i4,71,00,000/-l and Rs.7,89,84,973 /-are added to the total incomc declarcd in the return filed under Section 148 in respect of APA adjustments.

31. In reply to the first proposition, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department has submitted that the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to make any adjustme nt/ addition to the income disclosed in ( such modified return under Section 92CD of the Act, lr'hich provides that the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment or reassessment proceedings in accordance with the agreement taking into consideration tl-re modified return so furnished. Therefore, it was open lor the Assessing Officer to make addition to the income discloscd in such modified return. 19

32. As regar'ls the second proposition on i\'hether the sanction / approval before reopening of assessment \.r'as taken from thr: specilied authority in terms of Sec:tion 151 oi the Act, it is submitted that the explanation to amended Section I 51 of the Act introduced u,ith ,.:llect lrom O1.O1.2O23 bu the Finalce Act, 2023 is clarilicatory lIl nature. The::efore, lor the purpose of computine, the three ye;rrs period, t re period of limitation is excluded l:y tl-re third or lourth or lil', h provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub-section (11 of Section 149 of the Act has to br: taken into account. The rmpugned order under Section 14BA(d) of the Act and the Notice under Section 148 of the Act u,ere issued on 07.O1.2O2:.1 as the period of limitation u,as c.xtended by SCVEN davs prrovided to the assessee to file its reply llt response to tlle Notice under Section 148A(b) o[ the Act. Therefore. th(' initiation of the proceedings was rvell u'ithin three vears p,:riod provided under Section 148 of the Act and tht ap rroval/sanction obtained from the PCIT, Hyderabad-2 \vas proper in the eye of the law,. I \ .j0

33. [n response to thc third proposition regarding the jurisdiction of the JAO to reopen the proceedings in the 'ur.ake of Faceless Assessment Scheme vide Notification No.18 of 2022, rt is submitted that the issue decided by this Court has not reached linalitv as the Special Leave Petition filed by the Department is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

34. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue submits that the Assessing Officer has reopened the issue as the employee contributions of provident fund amounting to Rs.7,89,84,9731- was remitted beyond the due dates by the assessee company and was not added back to the returned income. Hence. the said amount nceds to be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Moreover, the assessee company debited an amount of Rs.9,8O,26,0421- towards CSR expenditure and an amount of Rs.57,79,894/- tou,ards donations. The assessee company, hou.ever, claimed the entire CSR expenditure of Rs.9,80,26,0421- as donations and claimed deduction of 50% ol the expenditurc under Section BOG of the Act in the Computation Statement under Ch.lpte. VA. Therefore, reopening of assr:ssment in respect of AL r determined as reflected in thc modifir:d return s'as op:'ned b1, the JAO. Therefore, thc corrtention of the petitioner is not tenable in law.

35. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue at the end subnrits that the petitioner has remed.l of appeal belore the CIJ' under Section 246A of the Act. Tl^.e assessee companv can filc a revision before the lea rned PCIT, Hyderabad 2, under Section 263 of the Act. lt,.:an also file an Appeal urrdcr Section 253 of the Act before the ITAT against the orrler passed by the CIT (Appeals). The petitioner b-vpassir-rg the alternative remedy has approacheC this Court and therelore, the u,rit petition cannot be maintzrined.

36. Based on the above submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents has submitt,:d that the I petitioncr rs irot cntitled to any of the reliefs as praycd for :rnd therefore the q'rit petition should be dismissed. i2 Analysis of the submissions of the parties and reasoning:

37. The present challenge relates to reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with Section L448 of the Act, dated 16.01.2O24 for the assessment year 2}la-19. Petitioner had initially filed its return for rncome on

30.11.20i8 for the assessrnent year 2018-19 for a total income of Rs.72O,43,7O,9BO / - . Petitioner received an Intimation dated 24.O2.2020 upon processing of its return in terms of which addition of Rs.7,89,84,O3I I 'uvas done under Section 438 read with Section 36(1)(va) ol the Act. The appeal preferred against the addition was dismissed on 31 .O7.2023 by the CIT (Appeals), in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services {Pf Limited (supra), the issue of belated payment of employees' contribution towards provident lund has reached finality The petitioner, therefore, accepted the disallovvance of addition of Rs.7,89,84,031/- and remitted the corresponding additionai taxes. Later, the petitioner's return was subjected to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. Hor.r,ever, vide order dated 25.02.2022, the return income \r-as accepted without ma-liing any addition / disall,-'u;ance. Thereafter, the Jurisdictional Assessing Offir:er, respondent No.2 (ACIT) issued notice under Section 14BA(b) of the Act dated 23.03.20'22 stattng that the incorr,e chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in respect of I 'r'o issues, namely (a) belated remittance of employee contribution of provident fund amounting to Rs.7,89,84,97'.). l- and (b) disallowance of Corporate Social Responsibilitr (CSR) expenses amounting Rs.4,90, 13,O21 I The petitioner filed its response on

30.O3.2O22. Florr.ever, the JAO rejected the objections and passed an orCer under Section 148A(d) of the Act, ON

07.O4.20'22 aurd also issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, 07 .O4.2022, reopening the assessment. The petitioner filer: its return on 04.05.2O22 declanng the total rncome of Rs 720,43 ,7O,9BO l - as declared in the original return of irrcome. Therealter, the petitioner received \ lntimation da.ied 3O.O 1 .2023 lrom the Assessment Unit in Income Ta-\ Department stating that the rcassessment proceedings are translcrred to the Assessment Unit under the National [iaceless Assessment Centre :i.1

38. The petitioner and the CBDT entered into a unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) dated 15.02.2023 after discussions and negotiations, which among other terms and conditions included the operative expenses, operative revenue and Arms' Length Price. The APA related back to five years from the date of the APA and covered the subject Assessment Year 2O1B-19. Under Section 92CD(1\ read with Section 139 of the Act and in terms of APA, the petitioner liled its modilied return on 28.O3.2023. The petitioner also liled statutoqr Form 3CEF on 31.03.2023 as per para 10 of the APA lr,ithin 90 days of entering into the APA conforming that it had satisfied and fulfilled all the relevant and applicable terms anci conditions of APA. Subsequently, another notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 I I of the Act u,as issued on 17.77.2023 calling for explanation in rclation to two issues, for which reassessment u'as opened. The petitioner filed submission on 23.tt.2023, rvherein it explained the basis for not offering the additionai income in the modified return of income. Another shoq. cause notice r,r.'as issued on 22.77.2023 pointing out that the Nil inconre pursuant to APA was not supported by any documentary t'vidence and called upon the p.ititioner to furnish details by 29.11.2023. Meanu,hile, the assessment unit issued another show cause notice dated '2a.1I.2O23 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why an amount of Rs.106,47.00,730/- shall not be added to total income in relation to the modified return in pursuance of' APA. The petitioner con tended that it had liled the requisite documentar-y e 'vidence and once again furnished necessary documents with its submissions on 04.12.'2023. The assessment unit/ respondent No. 1 thereafter p:rssed the impugned rcas;sessment order b1' making thr: fo1lo',ving additions/delet-ions dated 16.O1.2024 (Ex.A.2O):- (a) accepted t hat no disallo',r'ance of deducti,rn under Section BOG pertaining to CSR donation; and (b) added Rs.7,89,84,9'i 3' l- patd by the assessee towards employee contribution to the provident fund to the total income as per the provisions of Section 2(24) reztd u,ith Section 36(1)(va) of the Act for tl-r<: relevant assessment 1,ear 2O 18- 19. It also recorded that ;ince the assessee had under reported its income, penalt',' proceedings uncler Section 274 read with \ \ 36 Section 27OA of the Act is initiated separately for such under reporting ol income. The submission of the assessee in respect of disallou,ance of deduction under Section 80G pertaining to CSR donation was accepted, no adverse interference ',vas drawn on this. The respondent No I , however, made addition pertaining to arm's length adjustment of international transaction entered into bv the petitioner with its associated trading enterprises to the tune ol Rs. 106,47,00,73O l- by the impugned order dated

16.01.2024.

39. This Court no\v proceeds to deal each of the proposition advanced by the petitioner ln respect of its challenge to the reassessment order dated 16 .Ol .2024, in the light ol the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 as u'e1l as the Income Tax Rules, 1962 applicable to the subject period and taking into account the stand of the respondent Department: - I. In view of the fact that there was no adverse rePort of non-compliance with the terms of the APA issued by the TPO/CBDT, the Respondent No. 1 was bound to ( ( accept the rrrodified return filed under Section 92CD and he trad no jurisdiction to make any adjustment/addition to the income disclosed in such modified return.

40. The petilioner upon entering into APA on 15.O2.2023, as per Section 92CC, which inler alia covered the year under consideration was required to file the modilied return of income in tr:rms of Section 92CD(1) of the Act. The petitioner filed the ACR in Form No.3CEF on 3i.03.2023 as per Rule 10' O of the Rules. Section 92CC" deerls u,ith advance pcicrng agrcenrent with any person. detcfinrnlng thr- ' 92CC (I) Th{: lloard, with the .rpproval of ([c Central Gorernnrcnt, oray cnter into Em (a) aIm's length price or specifylng the manncr iir which rhe zrrm s lcrrgth price is to be detennirr,ld, in relation to an intcroatrooal tr'ansaction ro be enrcred into by that Person; (b) income referred to in clausc (4 of sub scctron (l) of Scction 9, or spccifying the manner in which said income is to bc determined, as is reasonably attributable to the operlrtions ca.rried out in India by or on behalf of that per:ron, being a non resid(:nt (2) The Inannr:r ,)l determination of thc arms lcngrh price rctcrred to r. clause ((4 or the income referred to in ,lause (b) of sub-scction lIl. may nclude the methods i rferred to rn sub- scctron (1) of Sectiorr ,)2-C or tlre methods providcd by rules madc under rhrs Act, respectively, \r'ith such adjustmcnts or variations, as mav be necessary or expcdicnt so to do. (3) Notwithstandrng an]'thing coorained in Sccrron 92 C or Section 92 CA or rhc methods prondcd by rulcs nlade under this Act, t-hc arm s lenglh prrce of any inlcrnarj(,nal uansaction or the incorBc referred t( in clause (b) of sub section (1), 1i .cspecr of which rhc advancc pricing agreement has bet:n cntercd into, shall be deternrined in accordance with :he advancc pncing agrPement so enterr'd l \ (4) The agreenlcnr refcrrcd to in sub scctio! il) shall tle Yalid for suctr |,..rcd not excecding Ilve consecutrve prcv() rs ycars as mav be spccified ln thc aqreernent {5) The advan(c Fricing agreement cntcred ioro shall }}e btnding (a) on the persor rn \r'hose case, iuld rn respccl ofrhe transacdon rn relztion to which, the agreemenl h3s been entered into: and (b) on thc Principal Commissioncr or Comrnlssioner. and the incolnc tan authorities subordin,(e lo him, in respect ol the said pcrson and lhr s;rid tralrsaitlon. {6) The agreentcnt .eferred to in sub-sccuon (l ) shall oot be bin(ting if rhcrc is a change in larv or facts having bearirrr on tirc agrcement so cntcred. .rs Advance Pricing Agreement. Section 92CC(1) provides that the Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advancc pricing agreement '"r,ith any person, determining the arm's length price or specifying the manner in which arm's length price is to be determined, 1n relation to an international transaction to be entered into by that person. The income referred to in clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section 9, or speciff ing the marner in which said income is to be determined, as ls reasonably (7) Thc tloard nray, \l,rth the approral o[ lhe Central Govcmmcnt, by an ordea, declare 3rr agreement to be void ab initio, if it linds that Ihc agrccmcnt has been obtained by the pcrson bl' fraud or misrepresrntation of facts (8) Upon dcclaring the agreenent void .rb lniuo,- (a) all thc provisrons of the Act shall applr lo lhe person as if such agreement had never beert entercd into: and (b) notwithstandlng anyrhrng contixncd rn thc Acl, for the purpose of computlng any period of limitation undcr thrs Act, the penod bcgulning with the date of such agreement and ending on thc date of orde. uldcr sul) sccli(,l (7) shall be excluded: Provided dla( where rmmcdiacly aftcr lhc cxclusioil of thc a-forcsaid pcriod, thc period of limitatron, referred to in anv provlsron of t}lis Act, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shdll be cxtcnded to sixty da)s and the aforesaid period of limit.rtion shall bc dccmed to be exten.led act ordrnSlv. (9) The Board may, for the purposes of thrs sectlon, prescribe a schemc specifying therein the manner, form, proccdurc aJrd an] other mattcr generally in respect of the advance pncing agreemcnt- (9 A) The agrecment relcrrcd to in sub sc(Iron (ll, nray, subjectto such conditions, procedurc and manner as may be prcscribed, providc for dctermining the (a) arms length pricc or spccify the manncr in which the arm's length price shall be dctennined io rclation to the inlernational transaction entered into by the person; {b) income referred to in clausc (d o[ sub-section (l] of Section 9, or'specifying the manncr in which the said incornc is to be dctcrmincd, as is reasonably attiibutable lo the opcrations cafiied out ln lndra b!- or on behalf of that pcrson, being a non_ resident. during any perrod trot exceeding four prelx'us years prcccding the lirst of the Previous Icars rcferred to in sub-scction 1.11, and the arm :; Ii'n$h l)rx e o[ such international transaction or t}Ie incomc of slrch pcrson shall bc dctcrmincd rn accordalcc tl1th the sard agreement. (I0) Where an application is made b-v a pcrsofl lor cnterrng into an agrecment referred to in sub sectron (l). the proceedlng shall be dccnrcd 1() bc peDding rn tl.le case of (hc person for thc purposes of the Acl- l9 attributable to th() operations carried out in Indiil 1.rr- or on behalf ol that person, being a non-resident. Sub- sec tion (3) provides that rLotu,ithstanding anlthing contajned in Section 92C or 92CA, the arm's length price of an-y internationai trarLsaction, in respect of n'hich the :rdvance pricing agreem('nt has been entered into, s;lrall be determined in accordance u'ith the advance pricirrg agreement so r,'ntered. Sub section (4) provicit:s that agreement referrr:d to in sub-section (1) shall be valid for such period not ,, xceeding five consecutive previous \ cars .rs may be specified in the agreement. Sub-section (5) provides that APA shall b,: binding on (a) the person in \\'h(rse case, and in respecl of the transaction in relation to u i-rich, the agreement has been entered into; and (b) the l)rincipal Commissioner or Commissioner, and the ittc c,me t a-x authorities subc 'dinate to him, in respect of the sa i:1 person f and the said t.r:rnsaction. Sub-section (6) provide-s that the APA shall not br: binding if there is a change in lat'or facts having bearing ,rn the agreement so entered. Sub-section (7) provides thirt Board may, u'ith the approval ol the Central Gor.ernreent, bv an order, declare an agrcement to 1 I I 10 be uoid ab initio, il it fir-rds that ti-re agreement has been obtained by the person b_v fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Section 92CD- provides for eflect to advance pricing agreement. Sub section (1) provides that notu,ithstanding anything contained in Section 139, u,here any person has entered into an agreement and prior to the date of entering into the agreement, an!' return of income has been furnished under tl-re provisions of Section 139 for any assessment year relevant to :i previous _\'ea1r to which such agreement applies, such person shall furnish, u'ithin a period of three months lrom the end of the month in u,hich the said agreement u-as entered into, a modified return in accordance 'u,ith and limited to the agreement. Sub-section (2) provides that save as other\\'ise provided in this Section, all other provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly as if the modified return is a return lurnished under Section

139. Sub-section (3) provides th:rt if the assessment or I I I -11 reassessment ])roceedings for an assessment ,vear relcvant to a previous,vcar to r.r,hich the agreement applies hzrve been completed bcforr: the expiry ol period allou,ed for fr.rrnishing of modified rotlrrn under sub-section (1), the ,\ssessing Olficer shall. in a case u,here modified return is filed ir-r accordance r,vit.Lr the provisions of sub-section ( 1 ). pass an order modifling the total income of the relevant assessm(-'rlt r-ear determined in such assessment or reassessment, as the case ma1' br:, having regard to and in accord;rr-rcc s-ith the agreement.. Sub-section (4) provides that rvhere the assessment or l'eassessment proceedings for an assessmenl vear relev:rnt tc the previous year to '"r'hich the itgreement applics are penCing on the date of filing of moclif ied returr.r in accordance u'ith the provisions of sub-sectic,rr ( 1 ), thc Assessing Oflic,:r shall proceed to complete the assessment or reassessrnCnt proceedings in accordance $'ith the agreement takr ;rg into consideration the modiliecl rcturn so fu rn ished.

41. In the prcsent case, the reassessment procL-cdings for the relevant as;sessment year \(/ere pending on the date o[ filing of modifiecl return, u,hich .,'i'as filed in terrns of sulr \ .l section (1) of Section 92CD ol the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Oflicer lvas required to complete the assessment or reassessment proceedings in accordance rvith the agreement taking into consideration the modified return so furnished. Rule 10-06 ol the Rules rclates to furnishing of Annual Compliance Report. Sub rule (1) thcreol provides that the assessee shall furr-rish an Annual Compliance Report to the Director General of [ncome-tzr-r (lnternational Taxation) for each year covered ir-r the agreement. The Annual Compliance Report shall hzrve to be filed in Form 3CtrF in quadruplicate \\'ithin ninetr- da-r's of entering into an agreement as is applicable under sub rulc (3) thereof to the present case. At this stage, it is pertiner-rt to note that the issue whether the assessmellt unit/ rc sponclcnt No.I does have the jurisdiction to examine the arm's length price of an international transaction undcr the APA is nnss'ered in Rule 10P of the Income Ta-r Rules. 1962. Rule 10P7 ol the ) .t I I l Rules relatr:s to Compliance Audit of the agrecment. Rule 10P(1) of th,.' Rules provides that the TPO having the jurisdiction o\ er the assessee shall carry out th( compliarrce audit of the i;-greement for each of the year covered in the agreement. Sub-rule (2) provides that the TPO rnal' require (i) the assessce to substantiate compliance with the terms of the agreemont, including satisfaction of the critrcal assumption s. correctness of the supporting data or information .rnd consistency of the applica tion ol the transfer pricing method; and (ii) the assessee is requirecl to submit anl irrformation or document, to establish that the terms of th(' i, greement has been complied with. Sub-rulc (3) proves that the TPO shall submit the compliance audit report, for t:ach year covered in the agreenrent, to the Director Gi:neral of Income-tax (lnternational'laxation) (iil thc assessee lo lrubmit any informatron, or document, to establish rhal the terrn-s r)f dle agreement h:rs becn (omplied with. (3) The Transfcr lYrcLng Officcr shall submit the compliaJrce audit report, for cach ycar covercd rn thc agrccnrerrt. to th. Director Gcneral of Income-tax (lnternational Taxation) Ln case of unllalcral agreement and to rhc compctenr aurhority in India, in case of bilateral or mr.rllrlatcral agreement, mcntioning thererrl his lindings as regards compliance by the assesser: witl ternrs o[ the agreerlcnt. (4) Thc Directo. (;eneral of Income tax (lnternational Taxation) shall fonvard thc report !o the Bo;rrd rn a case r|hcre therc is finding of failure on part of assessce to comply wrth terms of agrecment and callcpLlation of the agreement is required. (5) Thr cornplidr(c .rudit reporr shall bc fumished by the Transler Pricnri Ofiicer lrlrhur six rnonths from thc rrnL of the month in which thc Annual Comptiance Report r(:li'rrcd to in Rulc l0 O is received bv the'lransfer tticing Ofncer_ (61 'i'he Fegular audl of the covered transactions shall not be undcrtakcn bl. lhe Traislc. [,n(rng Olliccr rf an.{gre,.,rn(irt lras i)ec cnrered tnto under Rulc IOI_ except \'hcr,, the agrecmcr,r Itai bccn oulcell(:d ull(lcr Ilulc l0R. \ i\ +l case of unilateral agreement and to thc competent authorit_v ln India, in case of bilateral or multilateral agreement, mentioning therein his findings as regards cornpliance br' the assessee vgith the terms of the agreement. Sr-rb,rule (4) provides that the DGIT shall forrvard the report to the Board in a case where there is Iinding of failure on part of assessee to comply with terms of agreement and cancellation of the agreemen t IS required. Sub-rule (5) provides that thc compliance audit report shall be furnished bv thc TPO within six months from the end of the month in u,hich the Annual Compliance Report referred to in Rule 10-O of the Rules is received by the TPO. Sub-rule (6) proi,ides that the regular audit of the covered transaction shall not be undertaken by the TPO if an agreement has bccn entered into under Rule lOL except where the agreement has been calcelled under Rule 10R of the Rules

42. In the present case, the petitioner had flled thc ACR within ninety days on entering into APA in terms ol Rule 10- O of the Rules. The TPO has not submitted an,r' linding of failure on part of the assessee to compl_v rn,ith the terms of the agreem er t, which could lead to canr:t:llation of agreement. l.lespondents have not control/erted the contention of the petitioner that any adverse report has been receiverl rom the TPO or any appropriate zruthority. it 1S thereforr:, clear that the respondent No.1 or the Jurisdiction:ll Assessing Officer does not have tl-re jurisdiction to examine and to make reassessment on its ou,n. He is nol vested with the jurisdiction to int-erpret tl-re APA as to w,hether the petitioner has satisfied thc terms and conditions ol the APA. It is only the TPO who has the jurisdiction ()vr.'r the assessee to carry out the compliance audit of the a.rlreement for each of the year covt:red in the agreement. [n case the complialce audit report submitted within the pre r;cribed period of six months from the end of the month in .r,hich the ACR referred to Rule lO-O of the Rules, is furnished by the TPO with the linding of failure on the part of l.Iit' assessee to comply with the terms of the \ agreement. tl're DGIT (lnternationai Transaction) is oblig:eted to forward to ttre Board for cancellation of the agreement, if required in rerms of Rule 10R of the Rules. Rule I O-R 46 provides that the agreement shall be cancelled for the lollori,ing reasons: i) the compliance audit referred to in Rule 10P has resulted in the finding of lailure on the part of the assesscc to comply with the terms of the agreement; ii) the assessee has failed to fiIe the annual compliance report in time; iii) the annual compliance report furnished by the assessee contains material errors; or ir,) the agreement is to be cancelled undcr sub rule (4) ol Rule lOQ or sub-rule (7) of Rule 1ORA of the Rules.

43. Sub-rule (2) provides that the Board shall give an opportunity of being heard to the assessec, before proceeding to cancel an application. As per sub rule (7) ol I I Rule lOR of the Rules, the order of cancellation shall be intimated to the Assessing Officer and the TPO, having jurisdiction over the assessee. The understanding of the Assessment Unit/respondent No.1 that in terms of Section 92CD that it had the jurisdiction to examine thc arm's lcngth price furnished in the APA as per the modified return 41 in vieq. of Seclion 92CD(2) is flaq,ed. The conception of the respondent Nc.1 that the petitioner/ assessee also was required to acid other income in its modified retLrrn, is also incorrect sinr:e under Section g2cD(ll, notr,r'ithstanding anl,thing contzrined in Section 139, the person entering into APA is requirr: d to furnish a modified return in accordance r,r'ith and limiled to the aqreement i.e. , ALP cor,'r:red under the internati,,nal transaction within a perioc[ of three months from the end of the month in which the said aqreement rva s entering into. Even in a case whe re the APA has not beelr entered into, the Assessing Officer if he considers it for determining the ALP in an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, as per Section 92CA(i), the ;r.ssessing Olficer if he considers it r-recessary or expedient t(l (lo so, may, refer the computation of ALP in relation to .,uch international transaction or specified domestic trarlsaction to the TPO. The CBDT has issued instruction No.3 of 2016, dated 10.03.2016 to n:concile the provisions of Section 92C(3) and 92CA(l) for proper administratiorr of the Act r.r,hich inter alia cont:iin detailed guidelines f<rr implementation of the transfer pricing +8 provisions. lt requires the Assessing Officer to maldatoril-1' reler to the TPO the issue ol determination of ALP ol an internationai transaction or specified domestic transaction. The relevant paragraphs of the instruction No.3 of 2016 are extracted hereunder:

3.2 AII cases selected for scrutiny, either under the Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) system or undcr thc compulsory manual selection system (in accordancc with the CBDT's annual instructions in this regard - for example, instruction No.6 12O24 for selcction in F.Y. 2014-15 and instruction No.8/2O15 for selection in F.Y. 2015-16, on the basis of transfcr pricing risk parameters in respect of internationa-l transactions or specihed domestic transactions or both have to be referred to the TPO by the AO, after obtaining the approval of the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) or Commissioner oI lncome-ta-x (ClT). The iact that a case has been selected for scrutiny on a TP risk parameter becomes clear from a perusal of the reasons for which a particular case has been selectcd and the same are invariably available w-ith the jurisdictional AO. Thus. if the reason or one of the reasons for selection of a case for scrutin isaTP risk parameter, then the case has to be mandatorily referred to the TPO bv the AO after obtai ninq the roval of the urisdictional PCIT or CIT.

3.3. Cases selected for scrutiny on non-transfer pricing risk parameters but also having intcrnational I I IO transactic'ns or specified domestic transactions, shall be referred to TPOs only in the following circumstances: [a) Where the AO comes to knov/ that thc ta-\paycr ras entered into international transactions or specified domestic transactions or both but the taxpayer has either not filed the Accountant's report under Se ,:tion 92E at all or has not disclosed the said transacti()ns in the Accountant's report filed; (b' whcre thcre has bcen a transfer pricing adjustm(:nt of Rs.1O crore or more in an e:rrlier asscssment _vear a:nd such adjustment has been upheld by thc jurlicial authorities or is pending in appeal; ald (c) where search and seizure or survey operations have been carried out under the provrsions of the In.:ome-tax Act and findings regarding transfer pricing i:,sues in respect of intcrnational transactions or specilied domestic transactions or both have been recorded b-y the Investigation Wing or the AO.

3.5 [n rrcldition to the cases to be referred as per parngraphs 3-2 and 3.3, a casc involving a tralsfer pricing :rdjustment in an earlier assessment year that has been fully or partially set aside by the ITAT, High Court or Supreme Court on the issue of thc said adjustment shall invariably be referred to the TPO for detcrminalion of the ALP.

3.7. F or :rdminrsterinq the trail sfer pricing regir:re in an effici':nt manner, it is clarified that thoueh AO has thcr ow:r under Section 92C to determine the,\LPof t \ 50 international transactions or spccified domestic determination of ALP should not bc transactions carried out at all bv rl-re AO in a case rvhcre reference is not made to the TPO. Howcver , in such cases, the AO must record in thc body of the assessment order that due to thc Board's lnstruction on this matter, the transfer pricing issue has not been examined at all.

44. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 committed jurisdictional error in not accepting the modified return under Section 92CD ol the Act. The respondent No.1 could not have made any addition to the income of the petitioner based on the terms of the APA. In the absence of anv adverse report from thc TPO/CBDT, the respondent No.1 was obligated to accept that the petitioner had complied with the terms of the APA and no addition can be made to the modified return of income.

45. The respondent No.1, therefore, went beyond jurisdiction to make addition of Rs.106,47,OO,73O /- relation to the modified return filed in terms of APA on Llt

28.03.2023 under Section 92CD(1) of the Act. The instant issue is therefore anslr.ered in favour of petitioner/ assessee { { -il II. Sanctiorr / approval obtained for reopening of the assessment \x,as not in accordance with section 151 of the Act and ar; a result the Assessment Order rlated 16th January 2024-was void, bad-in-law and of no legal effect.

46. As per ttre chronologr of dates and events contained in the tabular chart in the aforementioned paragrzryrhs, notice under Sectir>n 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner containing rei: sons for reopening the assessm(:nt on t\vo counts: (a) belated remittance of employees contribution to the provident lund of Rs.7,89,84,9731- and (b) disallowance of CSR expf'nses amounting to Rs.4,90, 13,021 l-. The petitioner lrrr.rished its reply on 30.O3.2O22 The JAO summarily re jected the objection and passecl the order under Section 14BA(d) of the Act on O7.O4.2O22 and also issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 07.O4.2O22 reopening thl assessment. Both Sections 14SA(d)8 and 3 1484. Conducrirg inquirr, prov ing opportunity beforc lssue of notice llnder Sectron 148- The Assessing Omc(:r shall, bcfore issuing any notice ul1der Sectiorr 148- (a) conduct any enquir\'. if requlred, with the pnor approval of spccii( d author]ty, lr.ith respect to th,' infornlation u,hrch suggests rhat the incomc chargeabl(. ro taj{ has cscaped asscssmcrrL: (b) provide arr oDporru rl\,of bcrng heard to the assessce. bt sen.lng ut)on him a lotice to sho\r,cau\c \.ithxr such ti t,.. ar rna] Irc spc(rfie.l ,,r ti.e,,or,c.. ireing nor kss tha;r sevcn dals rLrd irLI nor exceeding thlfly davs [.om rhe dale on r!,.lrch such rlotice is \ Section 14Be require the approval from the specified auth oritv.

47. A perusal of Section 14BA of the Act shows that every such stage i.e., at the stage of conducting the enquiry if issued, or suah timc, as ma] be cxtended by him on thc basis of an application in this beha-I[, as to why a notrcc undcr Scctio[ t48 should not be issued on the basis of infonnation which suggests that incomc cha.rgeable to tax has escaped assessment in his casc for the relevant assessnlent year and results of enquiry conducted, iI any, as per clause (a); (c) conslder lhe reply of assesstc furnished, if ary, in response to the show cause nolrcc referred to in clause (b); (d) decide, on the basis of matcrial available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a [t.ase to issue a notice under Sectioo ]r18. by passing an order. with the pnor approval of spectlled authorily, within one month from thc end of the monthy in whicb tie replr relcrred to in clause (c) is rcceivcd by him, or where no such rcply is furnished, within onc month from the errd of the month in which timc or cxtended timc allowed to fumlsh a reply as per clause (b) exprres: ttovided that the prolisions of tlis section shall not apply in a case wherc,- (a) a search is initiatcd rrnder Section I32 or books of accountant, othcr documents or arny assets are rcquisitro ed undcr Scction l32A rn the case of the assessee oi or a{ter the ls day of Apnl. :)O2l r or lbl l]le Assessiilg Officcr rs sausficcl. with the prrcr app.oval of the Pfincipal Commissioncr or Commissioncr that any monc\', bullron, Jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search ulrdcr Scction 132 or requisitroned under Scctron I32A, in the case of any otlcr person on or aJtcr the lst day of April, 2021, belo[gs to the asscssec; or (c) the Assessiflg Olliccr is satisfied, [ith the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioncr Lhat any books of accotrnt or documents, seizcd in a search under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 1324, in thc case of ary other person on or aJter lhc lst day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any infotmation contained therein, relate to, tic asscssee; or (d) 'Ihe Asscssing Omcer has rcceivcd any irtformation undcr the schemc notfred under Section l35A pertaining to nrcome chargcable to ta-\ escaping assessment for any assessmcnt ycar in tie case of thc ilsscsscc. Explanation.- For the purposes of this Sectiorl, specified authority means tie specifred authority referrcd to in Sectron 15l. " 148. Issue of notlce where income has escaped asscsstnent Before making the assessment, reassessment or recompulitton under Section 147, and subjcct to the provisiots of Scctn)n 148A, the Asscssing Offccr shall seNe oo the assessee a notrcc, along with a copy of the order passcd, if requircd, under clausc ld) of Sectlon I48A, requhng him to fumish $.ithin such period, as may be specified in such irotice, a rcturn of his income or t]1e income of any other persorr rn respect of whrch hc ls asscssal)lc !ndcr thrs Act drlring thc prcvious year corresponding to thc relcvant assessment _!-car. in lhe Prescribcd iorm and verificd ln thc prcscribed marlner and settiog aorth such othcr particulars as rrrar bc prcscribed; and the provisroas of this Act shdll, so far as ma!'bc, apply accordingly as if sllch return \terc a return required to bc furnished under Section 139i Provided that no notice urrdcr ahrs scction shall be lssued unlcss there is informatlon wlth the Assessing O{ficer whjch suggcsts that thc incorrre chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in t}le casc of thc assessee for the rclevant asscssment year and tl1e Assessing Otlrcer has obtained p!q4pp1py4! q!1!q 9p9q1444ulir!!4t Is,islug stfellrSllcll I I I i1 required undor sub-clause (a) or before service of notice to show case under sub-clause (b) and also at l-he time of passing thc r>rder under sub clause (d) ol Scr;tion 148.4., prior approvi;l ol the specified authority 1S rt:t1uired. The explanation provides that specilied authority means the specilied autllority referred to in Section I 5l . Similarly, under Sectio l 1 48 while issuing notice upon t he assessee on the basis of information which suggests thal the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for t he relevant assessment Year, the Assessing Officer had to obtain prior approval of the specified authority to issue :;uch notice. Section 151 provides lor sanction for issue of notice. The substituted Section i 51 brought with effect lrom O1.O4.2021 alrplicable to the facts of the petitiorrr:r.

48. The pro'.,iso to Section 15i has been introrluced by the Finance Act, 12023 with effect lrom 01.04.2023. I'he relevant Section 15 l. ."r'ith its proviso is applicable to thr., case ol the I petitioner is <luoted hereun der:

151. Sa.nction for issue ofnotice:- Specified a!!hority for the urposes of Section 148 and Section l.ulfl,\ shall bc' 5+ (i) Principai Commissioncr or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if threc yea-rs or less thal three years have elapscd from the end of the relevant assessment ycar; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Princi pa1 Dircctor General or Chief Commissioncr or Director Gencral more than three vcars have clapscd from the end of the relevant assessment vear Provided that the period of three years for the purposes of clause (i) shall bc computed zrfter taking into account the period of limitation as excluded bv the third or fourth or fifth provisos or extcnded bv the sixth proviso to sub-section (1) ofSection 149.

49. In the present case, the order under Section 1 8A(d) and notice under .Section 148 have been issued on 07 .O4.2022 relatable to the relevant Assessment Year 20 1B- 19 i.e., after more than three vears from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval before passing the order under Section 14BA(d) ol the Act and before issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by the respondent No. 1, which is permissible only if three years or less than three years have lapsed lrom the end of the reievant assessment year. In the present case, the relevant three t t -r _) years lapsed on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principerl Director Ge neral or tht' Chief Commissioner or the Direcl.or General \\'at:i reqtrired to be obtained belore passing o[ the order under Sectior: 148A(d) or before issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act.

50. Learned counsel lor the respondent has relied upon the proviso to Section 151 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 wit.h effect from 01.04.2023 quoted abor.e to contend that the period of seven days furnished to the assessee to su-bmit reply to the notice under Section la8A(b) issued on 23.()3.2022 l:.as to be excluded for counting the period of three years. It is submitted that the proviso is clarificatory in nature and as such, it would operate from the date s,herr the amended Section 151 was brought into force i.e., Ol.O4.2O2l. However, such a contention is lit to be rejected since the proviso to Section 151 has been inserted by tire Finance Act, 2023 only with effect from O I .O4 .2023. It, therefore, cannot be applied retrospectively to exclude the period of seven days in lurnishing the replv to l() the notice under Section 14BA(b) ol the Act b_v the assessee. The Assessing Ofiicer could not have assumed exclusion o[ such a period while passing the order under Section 14BA(d) of the Act or issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on O7.O4.2O22 that such a proviso excluding the period consumed in furnishing the reply is going to be brought into the statute book by amendment by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from O 1.04.2023. In ta-xing statutes, intendment cannot be assumed unless specifically expressed in the provision enacted by the legislature. Therefore, the reopening of assessment rvithout sanction / approval of thc specified authority in accordar-rce u,ith Scction 15 1 of the Act was bad in law. Consequently, reassessment order dated 16.01.2024 also is bad in lari'.

51. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) relating to the same assessment year. In fact, perusal of the j udgment shows that the order passed under Section l aBA(d) of the Act and ( t 57 the notice unrler Section 148 of the Act both t,ere dated

07.O4.2022 relating to the assessment year 20 l8-19. The date oi orcier rrnder Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section L4B of the Act i.e., 07.O4.2022 are exactlv simil:rr to the case of the petitioner and the Assessment Yei,r 2018- 19 The relevant ::aragraph of the said decision is; profitably quoted hereuntler: :]. The impugned order and the impu tjned noticc lr:,th dated 7.h April 2022 state tht Authon t_\ that has accorded the sanction is the i'ClT, Mumbai-:'. The matter pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 20 lti 19 and since the impugned order as rvr:[] as the noti<xi are issued on 7th April 2022, both havc been issued l;e 'rond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with eIlect from 1d April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 4 . In this circumsta.nces, as held by this (,l,rurt in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner fncome Tax and others ll2023l 457 ITR 647. (Bomll, the sanction is inwalid and .:or r s,: quently, the impugned order and impugned notice lr()1r dated 7tt' Apnl 2022 under Section 14.!3A(d) and 14tt r: the Act are hereby quashed alld set asitle. (emphasis su p1>lied) \ 58 Therefore, it is held that the reopening of the assessment and the consc({uent reassessment order suffer from jurisdictional error. III. Lack of jurisdiction for issue of Notice under Section 148Alb) ofthe Act and Notice under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law required that the said proceedings be undertaken by the Faceless Assessing Officer FAO in terms of the Notilication No. 18 of 2022 i.e. e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 issued by the CBDT as per section 151A ofthe Act.

52. The petitioner has also assailed the reopening of the assessment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of tl-re Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). According to the petitioner, the proceedings could have been initiated onh, by the Faceless Assessing Oflicer (FAO) in terms of the Notification No. I B of 2022 i.e., e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 issued by the CBDT as per Section 151 of the Act. In the instant case, the notice dated O7.04.2022 under Section 148 of the Act rvas issued I j9 by the JAO tLolding charge of Circle 8(1) and not the FAO. This issue has been answered in lavortr of the petitioner/ as-cessee by the High Court for the State of Telangarr:r 11 tlrc case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. ITO (W. P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch, decided on

14.O9.20'231. Ihe judgement in W.P.No.13353 of 2023 rvas passed zrnd i:; applicable to the case of the petitioner. The revenue u'e r) t in Appeal against the judgment dated

29.OA.2O'21 rrassed in W.P.No.23573 of 2024 in Special Leave Pctitior- (C) Dairy No.33956 of 2025. Tht: apex Court vide its dcc sion dated 16.O7 .2025 has dismissed the Special Leavt: Petition holding that after going through the material on '-ecord, it does not find any goocl reason to interfere \\'rth the order passed by the this Court. Though learned coLrns;el for the respondent has taken a plea that the matter is st.ili sub ju dice before the apex Court, it is aiso not disputecl thal there is no stay on the decision i-endered on the subject b-r' this Court. Therefore, it is held that the notice dirtcd 07.A4.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act b1, tl.re .JAO is u,ithout jurisdiction. I 60 IV. Reopening is not justified in respect of a further issue, when the issues set out in the reasons recorded for reopening are dropped/have not resulted in an assessment of alleged escaped income.

53. On this proposition, the learned Senior Counsel lor the petitioner has assailed the reopening of the assessment of an independent issue, which was not set out in the reasons recorded for reopening. The reason for reassessment for reopening as per the notice dated 23-O3.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act \rrere as under: (a) Employee contributions of Provident Fund amounting to Rs.7,89,84,9731 - was remitted beyond thc due dates by the assessee company, however, the same was not added back to the returned income. Hence , the said amount needs to be disallowed urrder Section 36(i)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . (b) Assessee company debited an amount of Rs.9,aO,26,O42/- towards Corporate Social Responsibiiity (CSR) expenditure (which was incurrcd by way of donations given to various organizations) and an amount of Rs.57 ,79,894 / - Donatiorls. However, the assessec claimed the entire CSR expenditure of Rs.9,80,26,O421- as Donations and claimed the deduction of 507. of the expenditure i.e., Rs.4,90,13,O21/- under Section 8OG of the Act in the computation statcment under Chaptcr VIA towards { 6l dcdr-rctrons as CSR expenditure is not an allowable expcncliture, the same needs to be disallowed. ln thi-. regzu"d, you are requested to furnish the informrrtion along with supportive documentary eYid(rn( es for the above and to show cause as to why vou carie lor Assessment Year 2018-19 should not be reop('n,jd under Section 148 of the Income Tar Act, 196 I based on the above transactions/ information.

54. Be it intlicated here that in the reassessrnent order dated 16.01 .i>-O24. the Assessing Officer has accepted the submission ol the assessee on the issue of claim of deduction lrnrler Section 8OG in respect ol CSR donation and made nr: addition thereto. On the seconcl issue for reopening r.( , disallou,ance under Section .16(I)(va) of Rs.7,89,a4,9r3/- o11 account of employee con tribution to provident firr l, tl-re Assessing Officer has added aforesaid arnount to th: total income as per the provision:; of Section 2(2al@l rezrcl with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act for the Assessment Year 20 I 8- 19 after taking note of the submission r:f the petitioner that it had computed the additional ir1,- ome tax u,ith respect to deiay in employees contribution to provident fund and paid it as self- assessment t.lx. The compan-v had withdrawn its appeal 62 bcfore the CIT (Appeal) pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (Privatef Limited (supra).

55. It is u,orthwhile to indicate here that afte r processing ol the original return of the pe titioner filed on 30.1 l.2O 18, thc intimation under Section 1a3(1) of the Act r,r.,as issued on 24.O2.2O20 in which an addition of Rs.7,89,84,O31 l- under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of thc Act was made. The petitioner had preferred appeal belore the CIT (Appcals) which was dismissed by order dated 31.07.2023 bascd on the decision ol the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (Private) Limited (supra) by which the issue of belated payment of employees contribution to the provident fund reached finality. The petitioner, therefore, accepted the addition of the aforesaid amount to its income and paid additional tax in pursuant to the demand raised against it 'l'he Assessing Officer, therefore, shouid not have added the said income to its return again as under-reporting of its income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 27OA of the Act. It could amount to / I 6l addition of tlre same income under the samc head tr.l,ice when the peiitioner had accepted it after dismissal of the Appeal by '-hc CIT (Appeals). Apart from above, the Assessing Ofi'rcer proceeded to determine the Arm's Length Price under t;re Advance Pricing Agreement by not accepting the modified return of income under Section !)2CD of the Act. As held i -r ans\^.er to the proposition No.1 hereinabove, it is the juris;dictional TPO alone u'ho is vested with the po\^/er to c.rrrv out the compliarnce audit ol thc agreement for each ol' the year covered under the agrer:ment. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, in this regard, referred to th,, decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Lirnited (srrpra) and PCIT vs,. Sunlight Tour and Tra.vels (Pf Limited (supra) rendered 1-,y the Delhi High Court. lle has referred to the un-amended Section 14710, whicl-r rvas the subject matter of interpretation in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (Il Limited (supra). The Division Ilt:rr<:lr of the Bomba-v High Court in CIT vs. Jet to 147. Incoae escapinS assessment. lf the Asscssing Ofllccr. has reason t) beLeve lhat any incomc chargcablc lo r, Lx has escaped asscssmenl l(,r anl, asscssrnent Year, hc nray, sublect to the provisions of s( (lra.,os l{8 to 153, assess or-tcirsscss strch incomc aad also any other income chargcablc to t,L\ rr hi( r has cscaped asscssrnent iu)d l\tich comes to his nolice subscqucntly in the course of rhc pr. cc(lrngs und.r rhrs se(Jrur. or rcco,pute rhe loss ,rr thc depreciation allo\r'arce or ar)l i)llr.r . lo$,.: ce, as thc (.irs. ra\. lJr., ibr the asscssn(,tt year concemed (hereaftcr rn rhis sr' rx) r :rrd rn secrio,1s I ]8 lo i5'r rr'fcrre(l ro as rhe rclei,anl rsscssment ycar): \ I 6{ Airways (If Limited (supra) examined the expression "and also" contained therein and arrived at a finding that after issuing a notice under Section 148, if the Assessing Officer accepts the contention ol the assessee and holds that the income u'hich he has initiallv formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other incomc. Il he intends to do so, a fresh noticc under Section '1 48 would be necessary, the legality ol r'vhich would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the amended Section 1 47 r r substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 , u,hich according to him, though is worded diffcre ntlr,, but thc ratio of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Limited (supra) should also appl_r, to such a situation under the amended appiicable to the case of the petitioner. rr 147. Income €scaping assessment - [f any income chargeable to. tax, in the casc o[ an asscssee, hars escaped assessrllcnt for anv assessment year, the Asscssirg Officer may, subjcct rc thc provisions of Sections l lll to 1J3. asscss or rcassess such mcome or rccompute lhc loss or the depreciation allowance or anv othcr allowance or deduclon for such,rssessmcnt year (hercaf(er in this scction and rn Sections 148 1I) 153 referred to as tie relevant assessmcnt yea-r)- Expla,L.tnon. !'or thc purposcs of assessment or reasscssment or recomputation under this scction, l}Ie Assessing Omcer ma] assess or reasscss the income in respect of any issue, rvhich has cscaped assessmen!, and .:qdl_Esue g)lseg to his notice subseauen v irl thc course gf thc p!!)!s!4i!a! un(ler this s(.c[on. irr'cspc.tilc ofthc fact lhat the pro$isions of Section 1-18 A ltale nor bccn compli.rl irirh. I I 65

56. Apparenr ly, the expression "and also" in trn-amended Section 147 h,rs been substituted u,ith the expre ssion "and such issue colnes to his notice subsequentlY in the course of the procee'dings under thlq Seq!tS4". Thr:refore, the judgment ren,,lered in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (If Limited (suprrL), in our opinion, on the un-amet-ried Section would not ipso facto appl-\' to the prescrlt proceeclings under Section 147 o1' the Act brought into being frorc, ltl.O4.2O2l However, since the first three propositions have been ansu'ered in l,Lvour of the petitroner/ assessee h olding that the reopening ol assessment u,as w,ithout jurisrliction and consequentll,, r'eassessment order suflers lrom ju risdictional error, we do not deem it necessar\. to delve u.ith tlris issue in the present pr<:ceedings leaving it open to the decided in an appropriate ca:re. t V. Without prejudice to the above, erroneous computation of the ALP based on the erroneous interpretation. of the APA has been made by the Respondent No. 1. 66

57. The learned Senior Counsel lor the petitioner has also questioned the erroneous computation of the ALP based on an erroneous interpretation of APA by respondent No.1. This issue invites the altention of this Court to examine the computation of the Arm's I-ength Price under the APA entered into by the petitioner. However, since we have affirmativelv held against the Revenue that it was not open for the respondcnt No.1/Assessing Unit, to determine the Arm's Length Price in respect of transactions covered under the APA as jurisdiction to submit compliance audit report on the transactions covered under the APA lies witl-r the Transfer Pricing Officer alone, lve are not required to go into the question whcther the respondent No.1 had erroneously computed the ALP based on the erroneous interpretation of the APA. {

58. In vier.r, of the dctailcd reasons ald findings referred to hereinabove, in ansr.n'er to thc proposition Nos.1, 2 and 3 by this Court, the impugr-red reassessment oi:der dated

16.01.2024 passed b.v the respondent No.1/Assessing Unit 61 suffers from -jurisdictional error and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingty quashed.

59. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to r:osts. Miscellaleous applications pending, if alv, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/. SMAN ALI BAIG NT RE E:(;TION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE S RI A Ai?ESH KUMAR SINGI-I ,'For His Lordships Ki nd Perusal) One Fair Copy'to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN rlFor His Lordships Kind Perusal) i I To, Assessment Center, New Delhi, lndia

1. The Assessment Unit, lncome-tax Department, National Faceless 2. The Assistant Conrmissioner of lncome-tax, Circle 8(1 ). Hyderabad. 3. '1 1 LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, lr1inistry of Law. Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi Buildings, Hyderabad.

5. The Secretary, lelangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court 6. One CC to SRI K.PRATIK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Ms. J.SUNITHA, Sr. SC FOR lT [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies BSR BS I I i I I I I I 4 ic_ ,* c '! {r. + a 4 i * 4 4 HIGH COUR]- DATED: 2510912025 ORDER WP.No.4061 r:rf 2024 \. 0 { lrfi\/ 2ff6 ,: tq- -- ' ALLOWING T}{E WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COISTS to D( 1 d,