IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai.

Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

ITA No. 4415/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) ITA No. 1524/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2018-19)

Owens-Corning (India) Private DCIT-15(1)(1)

Limited Aayakar Bhavan Alpha Building, 7^th Floor Vs. M.K. Road Hiranandani Gardens Churchgate Powai, Mumbai-400 076. Mumbai-400 020.

PAN : AAACO1739M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue by : Shri H.M. Bhatt Date of Hearing : 15/04/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/04/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

The appellant company is aggrieved by the additions made by CPC under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act in the first stage and by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) subsequently on the same issues in these two appeals. Since the issues involved are common, assessment year is the same, both the appeals are clubbed and a common order is passed by the Bench.

2. The following grounds of appeal are filed as per ITA No. 1542/Mum/2025 and this appeal is against the addition made by CPC under section 143(1) of the Act which were later confirmed by Ld. CIT(A):-

“1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (the Ld. AO) and learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT (Appeals)'] erred in computing the income at INR 1,51,85,43,820 under normal provision of the Act and INR 1,22,88,10,516 under section 115JB of the Act in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act resulting in erroneous tax demand of INR 3,04,61,600.

2. Re; Dismissal of appeal filed against intimation u/s 143(1) on the grounds of doctrine of merger;

2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the in appeal filed by the Appellant against the intimation under section 143(1) treating it as infructuous merely on the ground that another appeal had been dismissed by a higher authority.

2.2 The learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the submissions made and explanations furnished by the Appellant and without adjudicating the appeal on merits erred to conclude the appeal as redundant

3. Re: Erroneous double disallowances to income determined under normal provision - INR 8.52.48,385 upheld by CIT(Appeals)

consequent to treating the appeal as infructuous (a) Disallowance of forex loss on ECB and creditors relating to capital asset- INR 8,44,04,626

3.1 The Ld. AO erred in disallowing forex loss on ECB and creditors relating to capital asset of INR 8,44,04,626 under section 37 of the Act without considering the fact that the said amount is already disallowed under 'schedule ICDS' in the return of income ('ROI').

(b) Disallowance of interest relating to capital work in progress for plant expansion - INR 14,22,381

3.2 The Ld. AO erred in disallowing interest of INR 14,22,381 relating to capital work in progress for plant expansion under section 36 of the Act without considering the fact the said amount is already disallowed under 'schedule ICDS' in the ROI.

(c) Amortization of premium paid for leasehold land - INR 20,39,318

3.3 The Ld. AO erred in disallowing the amortisation of premium paid for leasehold land of INR 20,39,318 under section 37 of the Act without considering the fact that the same is claimed as other deduction in the ROI.

(d) Deduction of donation, CSR expenditure - INR 26,16,852 and Interest on TDS -1,870

3.4 The Ld. AO erred in not considering the disallowances made under section 37 of the Act in the ROI relating to donation and CSR expenditure of INR 26,16,852 and interest on TDS of INR 1870.

The Appellant submits that the Ld. AO be directed to delete all the aforesaid double disallowances aggregating to INR 8,52,48,385.

4. Re: Reduction of deferred tax credited to profit and loss while calculating book profit - INR 5,45,86,490

4.1 The Ld. AO erred in not reducing the amount of INR 5,45,86,490 relating to deferred tax credited to profit and loss account while computing the book profit under section 115J