IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 686/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Qualcomm Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., CIT(A)-57, 80, Robinson Road, Singapore 5^th Floor, Earnest House, Central Area, Singapore Central Vs. Nariman Point, Area, Singapore-99999. Mumbai-400021.

PAN: AAACQ2819E Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar / Ms Jasmin Amalsadwala, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (in short "CIT(A)") dated 21.11.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('Ld. CIT(A)') erred in upholding the order under section 143(1) of the Act issued by Centralised Processing Centre (Ld. CPC) without appreciating the fact that due procedure of intimating the proposed adjustments vide notice under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was not followed which is a gross violation of principle of natural justice.

2. The Ld. CPC erred in law and facts, considering that adjustment undertaken in the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act are not in the nature of prima facie adjustment and requires thorough examination of facts and application of mind and hence, amounts to extraterritorial jurisdiction exercised by the tax authorities, which is bad in law.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the Impugned Order passed by Ld. CPC without appreciating the fact that Ld. CPC is precluded from making such adjustments in the Impugned Order.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making reference to the provisions and corresponding explanations to section 251 of the Act without appreciating that actions taken by Ld. CPC against the appellant are without any jurisdiction and that powers of CIT(A) are co-terminus and co-extensive to the powers of CPC.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in enhancing the Appellants income and ignoring binding judicial precedents which is in gross violation of the principles of judicial discipline.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in case of multiple sources of income, an Assessee is entitled to adopt provisions of the Act for one source of income while applying the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for the other source of income.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the sale of shares of different entities as different source of income and thereby erred in treating the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCC) and Long Term Capital Loss ('LTCL') as 'single source/stream of income.

8. The Ld. CII(A) erred in holding that the long terms capital losses amounting to INR 7,14,76,415 would be set off and thereafter the balance net Long Term Capital Gains only would become eligible for claim of exemption under para 4 of Article 13 of India -Singapore DTAA.”

2. The assessee is a company registered in Singapore and filed and filed the return of income for the AY 2020-21 on 15.02.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessee during the year under consideration has earned Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from the sale of 63 ideas Infolabs Pvt. Ld. to the tune of Rs. 23,42,22,400/- and from the sale of Reverie Language Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 14,48,08,653/-. The assessee treated the said LTCG as not taxable as per Article-13 of the DTAA between India and Singapore since these shares were acquired prior to 01.04.2017 eligible under the grandfathering provisions. The assessee for the year under consideration also incurred a Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs. 2,29,03,528/- from the sale of Deck App Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and a loss of Rs. 4,85,72,887/- from the sale of Deck App Technologies Pte. Ltd. (Singapore). The assessee in the return of income claimed carry forward of the LTCL und