आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी रवीश सूद, माननीय Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 368/Hyd/2024 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year:2005-06)

BA Continuum India Private VS. Dy. Commissioner of Income Limited, Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

PAN: AACCC3062D (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate करदाताका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Assessee Represented by : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Department Represented by : 20/01/2026 सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेक(cid:551)(cid:467)त(cid:876)थ/

Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad, dated 19/02/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 16/03/2012 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Erred in disregarding the submissions made, judicial precedents relied upon by the Appellant substantiating the grounds and upholding the action of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO"), and the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing) (hereinafter referred as "Ld. TPO") which is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

2. Erred in holding that the impugned re-assessment carried out by the Ld. AO in the name of BACI (formerly known as CFCI) which is a non-existent entity as valid in law.

3. Erred in upholding the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with 144C of the Act which is bad in law, arbitrary, contrary to facts, law, and circumstances of the case and liable to be quashed for the following reasons:

a) Satisfaction of the JCIT was not obtained before initiating the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act.

b) No evidence of any new tangible material has been referred to by the Ld. AO in the reasons for re-opening the assessment and hence, it is a mere change of opinion, and the Ld. AO does not have any reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.

c) There was no income which has escaped assessment as the reimbursements made by the Company to its AEs were not liable to tax in India and thus there was no requirement to withhold tax on such reimbursement and thus the said reimbursements were not liable to be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.

d) The Ld. AO erred to apply his mind on the nature of reimbursements and taxability of the said reimbursements in India and blindly followed the order/ decision of CIT(A) in the Company's own case for the AY 2006-07.

4. Erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd [(2003) 259 ITR 019] in relation to the procedure to be followed during re- assessment proceedings and thereby, the re-assessment proceedings are invalid in law and beyond jurisdiction for the following reasons:

a) The reasons for initiation of re-assessment proceedings were not provided by the Ld. AO in a reasonable time and thereby not issuing sufficient time to file the objections against the reasons for initiation of re-assessment proceedings;

b) Non-issuance of a speaking order disposing off the objections raised by the Appellant against reasons for assessment/reassessment under section 147 of the Act;

c) Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued without providing opportunity to