IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-2019 M/s. Scania Commercial Vehicles India Private Limited, Plot No. 64-66, 88-97, The Deputy Commissioner Narasapura KIADB Industrial of Income Tax, Area, Achhatanahalli Village, Vs. Circle – 6(1)(1), Narasapur Hobli Bangalore Kolar – 563133, Karnataka PAN: AAPCS33783A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13-10-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16-12-2025

ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

1. ITA No. 261/Bang/2022 is filed by M/s. Scania Commercial Vehicles India Private Limited for assessment year 2017-18 against the Assessment Order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi on 18.02.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the returned income of the Assessee at Rs. Nil/- is assessed at a loss of Rs. 161,63,03,274/-. The Assessee is aggrieved with that and is in appeal before us.

2. In the Assessment Order, there is an issue of Rs. 137,80,78,842/-

made by the Ld. Assessing Officer pursuant to the order passed u/s. 92CA(3) of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer which is resolved under the mutual agreement procedure and therefore the Assessee has wrote a letter dated 07.02.2025 that the transfer pricing adjustments have been resolved under the mutual agreement procedure and therefore all the grounds relied there to are not to be decided as withdrawn.

3. Therefore, the only issue was with respect to the balance ground of appeal relating to corporate tax additions which are ground no. 17, 18 and 19 of the appeal. Thus, these are the only issues pending in this appeal.

4. The brief fact of the case shows that, that Assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2017 at a total loss of Rs. 306,57,86,824/- wherein after the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, the Ld.

Assessing Officer retained three disallowance/additions as under:-

a. Depreciation claim of Rs. 2,14,45,821/- pertaining to the new assets purchased on which depreciation is disallowed by the Assessing Officer as Assessee has not explained the source of purchase of fixed assets.

b. The claim of the provision of warrantyof Rs. 4,51,07,257/- added by the Ld. Assessing Officer holding that it is contingent in nature.

c. Rental income of Rs. 48,51,630/- received towards renting of trailers, subletting of exhibition space are taxed under the head income from house property. The claim of the Assessee is that it is chargeable to tax as profits and gains of business and profession.

5. Coming to the ground no. 17, with respect to the depreciation, the fact shows that Assessee has made an addition of Rs. 15,56,16,965/- and intangible assets were added of Rs. 2,24,21,079/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer asked the Assessee by letter dated 15.02.2021 to specify the nature of intangible assets, name, address and permanent account number of the party from whom it is purchased along with the other details such as agreement, mode of payment, valuation report and business needs. The Assessee explained that there is no valuation report. The software are purchased which are used for the business purpose for inventory controls. The Assessee has purchased this through the business sources from the books of accounts. The Ld. AO held that Assessee has failed to provide mode of payment, proof of payment and business note and therefore the provisions of section 68 were invoked and made an addition of the total purchases of the fixed assets at Rs. 17,80,37,774/-. The issue was challenged before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel by objection no. 15 where the objection of the Assessee was allowed, and Ld. Assessing Officer was directed to examine the facts and consider the contentions made u/s. 68 of the Act. In the final assessment order in paragraph no. 5.4, the Ld. Assessing