IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LinkedIn Technology Information Pvt Ltd Vs. The P.C.I.T

16A/20, WEA Main Ajmal Khan Road Delhi - 4 Anand Parbat, S.O. Central, Delhi PAN – AABCL 7284 P (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA Ms. Riddhi Maru, CA Department By : Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the PCIT, Delhi – 4, dated 29.03.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2018-19.

2. The grounds of the assessee are:

Ground No. 1 - Order passed under section 263 of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax ('Ld. Pr. CIT") under section 263 of the Act is bad in law, void ab initio, without jurisdiction and hence, liable to be quashed.

The appellant submits that the main body of the impugned Order refers to the assessment order dated 7 April 2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Act as the order sought to be revised. However, para 5 and para 8 of the impugned Order refers to the reassessment order dated 28 March 2023 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act as the order sought to be revised.

Without prejudice to the above, the appellant submits that reassessment order dated 28 March 2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ('AO') under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, itself is bad in law and void ab initio. Therefore, the consequent revisionary proceedings and the impugned Order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act to revise such a non-est reassessment order is also bad in law and without jurisdiction. The Appellant prays that the impugned Order, passed under section 263 of the Act be held as bad in law, void ab initio and hence, liable to be quashed.

2. Ground No. 2 - Incorrect assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to the legal position that the underlying payments are not subject to deduction of tax under section 195 of the Act and consequently, outside the scope of disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, assuming without admitting that disallowance provision is applicable, the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act as the order sought to be revised is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

2.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in directing the tax officer to disallow 100% instead of 30% of the payments made by the appellant to LinkedIn Corporation and HireRight LLC on account of non-deduction of tax, without considering the provisions of Article 26(3) of the India-USA tax treaty.

2.3. Without prejudice to ground no. 2.2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT should not have exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, as the reassessment order is in line with accepted legal position and reflects one of the possible views.

2.4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT's direction to disallow 100% instead of 30% of the payments made by the appellant to LinkedIn Corporation and HireRight LLC are violative of the non- discrimination provisions under Article 26(3) of the India-USA tax treaty.

The Appellant prays that the impugned Order passed under section 263 of the Act, to revise the order, which is neither prejudicial nor erroneous, and being violative of the provisions of Article 26(3) of the India-USA tax treaty, should be