आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में , हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच , हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad , , श्री विजय पाल राि माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22)

ADP Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(1), PAN : AANCA8983A Hyderabad.

(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A.

Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Department Represented by CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 03.12.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed under Sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), dated

06.12.2024, in pursuance to the Directions dated 27.09.2024 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22.

2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :

“1. Ground 1: General Grounds

1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO'), the Ld. A.O. and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law by re-computing the total income of the Appellant for the relevant AY at INR 4,15,10,08,610/- as against INR 3,03,09,85,230/- as returned by the Appellant.

1.2 Impugned order of the Ld. AO, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is based on incorrect appreciation of facts and incorrect interpretation of law and therefore, is bad in law.

1.3 The assessment proceedings which culminated in passing assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act, dated 06 December 2024 is illegal and void in as much as it is barred by limitation as the order is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act and therefore the order, is liable to be set aside.

Grounds relating to corporate tax:

2. Ground 2: Erroneous disallowance of business support service expense of INR 75,91,57,538

2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and contrary to the law, the Ld. AO has erred in making the adjustment and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in upholding the adjustment pertaining to disallowance of business support service expense of INR 75,91,57,538 for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source ('TDS') under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.

2.2 Additionally, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and contrary to the law, the Ld. AO erred. and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in:

(a) Not appreciating the fact that when TDS provisions are not applicable, the Appellant is not required to obtain a non-deduction certificate under section 195(2) of the Act.

(b) Not appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant that the payments made to recipient/s are not chargeable to tax in India and accordingly, taxes were not liable to be deducted on the same and have erred in concluding that the Appellant is required to deduct TDS on payment for business support service expenses.

(c) Not appreciating that the payments made towards business support services cannot constitute Fee for Technical services in the absence of satisfying make available clause of the India-Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA').

(d) Not appreciating that the receipts received for providing business support services would constitute business income and in the absence of permanent establishment of the recipient in India, it cannot be taxed in India in terms of Article 5 read with Article 7 of India-Australia DTAA.

(e) Erred in concluding that the business support services are rendered in India without any basis and purely on presumptions, surmises and conjectures.

(f) Notwiths