आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:373)ी रिवश सूद,(cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एव ं(cid:373)ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद(cid:735) सम(cid:407) |

Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA TP Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19)

M/s Western UP Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1)

PAN:AAACW6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

आ.अपी.सं /ITA TP No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2017-18)

M/s Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1)

Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN:AAECM4426F (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Bench:

These three appeals are filed by M/s. Western UP Tollway Ltd (2) and Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. A.O”) for the A.Ys. 2017-18 and 2018-19 dated 12.01.2022, 30.07.2022 and 10.03.2022 respectively. Since identical issues are involved in all these three appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

ITA TP Nos.67/Hyd/2022 – A.Y 2017-18

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in partially confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and upholding the addition of INR 6,81,42,306/- as the circumstances necessitating the determination of arm's length price by the Ld. TP0 as mentioned in section 92C(3)

did not exist in the instant case.

2. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the action of Learned AO/ TPO and not accepting the economic analysis conducted by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules, and modifying the economic analysis for the determination of the ALP in connection with the transaction pertaining to "Interest paid on Non-Convertible Debentures ("NCDs")" by the appellant and holding that the international transaction is not at arm’s length.

3. That on facts, the Hon'ble DRP has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO/ TPO and rejecting the claim of the appellant that the search filters applied by the appellant were appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no need for the Learned TPOIAO to alter or apply any other additional filters without considering the fact the comparables transactions identified by the appellant in its Transfer Pricing documentation were appropriate.

4. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPO/AO has grossly erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law by:

a) Determining of the arm's length price of the impugned international transaction without applying any method and without performing any analysis in accordance with the provisions of Section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B and

10C of the Rules.

b) Rejecting the appellant's economic analysis stating that only SBI linked rate loans have been considered.

5. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the SBI Base Rate on account of different credit rating, maturity period and nature of security between the SBI Base Rate and the NCDs issued by the appellant.

6. The Hon'ble DRP/ Learned TPOIAO has grossly erred in rejecting the economic adjustments claimed by the appellant over the internal CUP data on account of different credit rating and nature of security between the NCDs issued by the appellant and the NCDs obtained from third party financial ins