आयकर अपीलीय (cid:7008)यायािधकरण म(cid:7286), हदै राबाद ‘ए’ ब(cid:7286)च, हदै राबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:7088)ी रवीश सदू , माननीय (cid:7008)याियक सद(cid:7021)य एव ं (cid:7088)ी मधसु दू न साविडया, माननीय लेखा सद(cid:7021)य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 457/Hyd/2022 (िनधा१रण वष१/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Alpla India Private Limited, VS. Deputy Commissioner of Income Hyderabad. Tax, PAN: AAFCA3145M Circle-1(1), Hyderabad.

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/ Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/ Respondent) करदाता का ঋितिनिध(cid:533)/ Assessee : Sri PVSS Prasad, CA Represented by राज(cid:738) का ঋितिनिध(cid:533)/ Department : Sri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Represented by सुनवाई समा(cid:593) होने की ितिथ/ Date of : 20/03/2025 Conclusion of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date of : 26/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R ঋित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by A.O U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 23/08/2022 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The A.O. / Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case.

2. The A.O. / DRP erred in holding that the other incomes mentioned in the draft assessment order are not eligible for deduction U/s 80IC of the Act.

3. The A.O. / DRP ought to have considered the fact that the said income is assessable as income from business and is eligible for deduction U/s. 80IC of the Act.

4. The A.O. / DRP erred by not appreciating the fact that job work charges wrongly classified as lease rental income represent the income derived from manufacture of goods and the same forms part of business income which is eligible for deduction U/s. 80IC of the Act.

5. The A.O. / DRP erred in making an addition on account of excess deduction U/s. 80IC of Rs. 1,21,41,264/-.

6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing with the prior approval of the Hon'ble Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of blow moulded and injection moulded plastic products such as bottles & caps etc., had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2018-19 on 28/11/2019 declaring an income of Rs. 29,16,74,520/- under the normal provisions and an income of Rs. 22,48,28,203/- U/s. 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny assessment U/s. 143(2) of the Act.

3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee company during the subject year had entered into international transactions within the meaning of section

92CA of the Act. On a reference made by the A.O. to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TPO-1), Hyderabad (in short “TPO”) on 31/07/2021 a Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment towards License Fee paid by the assessee company to is Associated Enterprise (in short “AE”) of Rs. 11.26 crores was suggested.

4. Further, the A.O. observed that the assessee company had during the subject year carried out its manufacturing activities in five different units located at Sitarganj, Baddi-1, Baddi-2, Pashamylaram and Silvassa. It was observed by him that the assessee company had raised a claim for deduction U/s. 80-IC of the Act of the profits of its unit located at Baddi-2. The A.O. on perusal of the record observed that the assessee company had included its muti-facet “Other incomes” in its business profit for the subject year for computing the deduction U/s. 80-IC of the Act, as under:

On further scrutiny, the A.O. observed that the aforementioned “Other incomes”, inter alia, included “lease rental income” of Rs.

3,01,50,000/-. On being queried, it was submitted by the assessee company that it had established i