IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Site Concepts Pvt.

Ltd., 27/1-2, 1^st Floor, The Income Tax Elegant Queensbury, Officer, Richmond Rd, Ward – 6(1)(1), Victoria Layout, Bangalore.

Vs.

Bengaluru – 560 047.

PAN: AAHCS1477M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K.B. Muralidharan, CA Revenue by : Shri Pradeep S, Addl. CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13-10-2025

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 10/09/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2020-21 and raised the following grounds:

“1. The impugned order passed by Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A)jis not justified in law and against facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The CIT(A) had failed to appreciate that order of the Assessing officer (AO) is bad in law as he had no reasons to assess an income different from what had been offered by the appellant.

3. The CIT(A) had failed to appreciate thatAO had failed to give proper opportunity before the passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be nullity in law.

4. The CIT(A) had failed to appreciate and accept the explanations given by the appellant during the course of assessment/ appeal proceedings.The AO had failed to appreciate that appellant had duly discharged his duty by responding to the points raised in show cause notice which was simply not accepted without any reason or basis and failed to refute the claims made by the appellant in response to show cause notice.

5. The CIT(A) had contradicted his own statement wherein he had held that Once the DTAA does not recognize any income as Fees for Technical services or royalty then classification of the said income has to be as per the other provisions of the DTAA"and thus should be treated as business profits as per provisions of DTAA between India and Philippines.

6. The CIT(A) had identified the nature of payment as Fees for Technical Services but reasonedAO findings which were only speculation and thus failed tojustify the applicability of deduction of tax at source.

7. The CIT(A) had failed to follow the correct position of law and had erred in sustaining the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) to the extent of Rs.1,23,24,017/- without appreciating the facts and law applicable to appellant.

8. The CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition which was based on the conjectures and surmises, which is bad in law.

9. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the various Judicial decisions passed by Jurisdictional Tribunals and Courts,brought to his notice,are in favour of the appellant but had failed to adjudicate on the applicability of same to appellant's case.

10. With prejudice to his right, the appellant prays that CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the ground raised by the appellant on non-setting off the brought forward business loss.

11. Without prejudice to our right, the appellant prays that CIT(A) had failed to notice the error in computing the tax and interest thereon on the erroneous computation of income.

12. That the appellant craves leave to add to and / or amend, modify or withdraw the grounds outlined above before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

Prayer:

On the basis of above Grounds and other Grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed be cashed, addition deleted and relief sought is granted.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed their return of income on 11/02/2021. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of brought forward TDS credit claimed as substantially less than the TDS carried forward in the returns of preceding assessment years and commission, roya