आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में , हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच , हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” 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.796/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Gainsight Software Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income-tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad.

PAN : AADCJ0284F (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri Alisagar Rampuawala, Assessee C.A.

Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik Department Represented by CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 06.11.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 12.12.2025 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

13.06.2024, in pursuance to the Directions dated 03.06.2024 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2020-21.

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

“General Ground

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 13 June 2024, passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ("the learned Assessing Officer" or "the Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in respect of AY 2020-21, is arbitrary, contrary to law, and liable to be quashed.

Legal Grounds

2. Final Assessment order is barred by limitation a) 153 timelines On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 13 June 2024, passed by the Assessment Unit – the learned AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act, and is thus void, bad in law and liable to be quashed.

b) DRP direction not followed On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. AO has erred in not following the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP to include Orion as the comparable & verification of margins of the comparables; thereby violating the mandatory provision of section 144C(13) of the Act, and hence the final assessment order is liable to be quashed.

c) Document Identification Number (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble DRP erred in issuing DRP Direction quoting Document Identification Number manually on the body of said directions dated 03 June 2024 in contravention to the Circular No. 19 of 2019 by the CBDT, and thus rendering such an order/direction to be invalid and never to have been issued as per para 4 to the said Circular.

(ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated 13 June 2024 under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act passed by Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, pursuant to invalid directions passed by Hon'ble DRP, is illegal; thus making the final assessment order bad in law, null and void and so liable to be quashed.

Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing ("TP")

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") in making an adjustment of Rs. 6,06,64,773 to the international transaction pertaining to provision of software development and support services.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP / Ld. TPO / Ld. AO erred in rejecting the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant, in good faith, as required under section 92D of the Act read with rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

5. On the facts and circ