IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3559/Del/2018 [Assessment Year: 2013-14]

The DCIT, M/s. Coforge Ltd. (erstwhile known Circle 4(2), as NIIT Technologies Ltd.), C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Vs 8, Balaji Estate, 3^rd Floor, New Delhi-110002 Guru Ravi Das Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 PAN-AAACN0332P Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Rohit Jain , Adv. & Ms. Somya Jain, CA Revenue by Sh. S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM, This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 44, New Delhi, [CIT(A)], dated 28.02.1018 in appeal No. 82/2017-18/CIT(A)-44 for Assessment Year 2013- 14, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company and is engaged in the business of information technologies, software service, solutions and system integration including development and export of computer software. The return of income for impugned year was originally filed on 30.11.2013 which stood revised on 31.3.2015 declaring total income at Rs.165,91,929,900/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The AO referred the case to TPO for determining the Arm length price of international transactions. Thereafter, the draft assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) was issued and served upon on 30.12.2016. When the assessee informed the AO that it will file appeal before CIT(A) challenging the additions / disallowances proposed, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144(C)(3)(b) of the Act on 22.02.2017, where the total income of the assessee was assessed ₹ 171,40,04,530/- by making various additions and disallowances, which includes the TPO adjustment of ₹ 5,16,73,139/- towards interest on outstanding receivables from AE, disallowance u/s 14A at ₹ 78,420/- and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)at ₹ 30,60,074/- for non-

deduction of tax atr source on bank guarantee commission.

3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which stood partly allowed in terms of the impugned order dt. 28.02.2018 passed by CIT(A) 44, New Delhi. Against such order the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. In form 36 assessee has taken grounds which were later revised by filing the revised Form No. 36. The revised grounds of appeal so filed are as under:

“1. Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,16,73,139/- to the income of the assessee on account of Interest charge on outstanding receivables from the associated enterprises (hereinafter referred as "the AEs") even when the provisions of section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred as "the "Act") have been amended by the Finance Act,2012 with the retrospective effect from 01.04.2002?

2. Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that interest from AEs on outstanding receivables cannot be charged if the margin of assessee is better than that of comparables after allowing working capital adjustment by ignoring the fact that the receivables were outstanding beyond agreed period?

3. Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.78,420/- us 14A of the Act by not considering the provisions of section 14A of the Act which stipulate computation of disallowance u/s14A of the Act mandatorily nude Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ?

4. Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.78,420/- U/s of the Act without considering legal principal that allowability or