IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15]

Convergys India Services Private vs DCIT, Limited, Industrial Plot N-243, Circle-4(2), Tower-A, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and New Delhi.

Tower-B, Ground, 2nd 5th Floor, S.P. Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122016 PAN-AABCC5056G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri K.M.Gupta &

Ms. Shruti Kimta, AR Respondent by Shri S.K.Jadhav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Ld.CIT(A)-44, Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-2/10401/2017-18 dated 07.03.2023 for AY 2014-15 passed u/s 250 of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”].

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, declaring total income at INR 1,52,79,96,910/- in the return of income filed on 29.11.2014. Since the assessee has entered into international transactions therefore, the matter was referred to TPO for determination of the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) of such transactions. The TPO vide order dated NIL has proposed certain adjustments and accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed on 11.12.2017 wherein the adjustment to the tune of INR 52,26,19,385/- as proposed by TPO were added and total income was proposed at INR 2,05,06,16,300/-.

3. Against the said order, the assessee has not filed any objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) and thus, the AO has passed final assessment order on 23.02.2018 wherein adjustment of INR 51,44,93,354/- towards provision of IT enable services and INR 81,26,031/- towards interest on receivables were made and accordingly, total income of the assessee was computed at INR 32,05,06,16,300/-.

4. Against the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 07.03.2023 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein following grounds of appeal are taken:-

1 “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)

erred in not admitting the additional ground raised by the Appellant with respect additional claim of the to restrict the levy of the dividend distribution tax ("DDT") on dividend declared and paid to its non-resident shareholders in accordance with Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (Tax Treaty') between India and USA by holding that fresh claim making first time in appellate proceedings is not permitted in the absence of such claim made in the return of income.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and on merits, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant in respect of levy of the dividend distribution tax ("DDT") on dividend declared and paid to its non-resident shareholders in accordance with the Tax Treaty between India and USA and upheld the applicability of section 115-0 of the Act on such distribution of dividend in the year under consideration.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating provision written back (amounting to INR 25.79 lakhs) as non-operating in nature on alleged ground that provision written back being an extra-ordinary item, thus cannot be treated operating in nature while computing the Profit Level Indicator ('PLI").

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.

AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. CIT(A) erred in not including the comparable namely Karvy Data Mgmt. Services Ltd. and ACE BPO Services Pvt Ltd, though both such comparables satisfied the filters proposed by the Ld. TPO and being engaged in the similar line of business of appellant.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/

Ld. TPO/Ld. CIT(A) erred in not excluding Infosys Ltd., Mindtree Ltd. and Wipro Ltd in-spite of the fact the said companies are not comparable to