IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2153/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., Elixir Chancery Building, The Deputy

7^th Floor, Commissioner of Municipal Door No. 135/1-2, Income Tax, Residency Road, Circle – 1(1), Bengaluru – 560 025. Vs. Bengaluru.

PAN: AAECA9391H APPELLANT RESPONDENT &

ITA No. 2334/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Acuity Knowledge Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Elixir Chancery Building, of Income Tax, 7^th Floor, Circle – 4(1)(2), Municipal Door No. 135/1-2, Bengaluru. Residency Road, Vs.

Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN: AAECA9391H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate, Assessee by : Ms. Mansa Ananthan, Advocate &

Shri Nirmal Mathew, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Divya K.J, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 16-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31-12-2025

ORDER

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These cross appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax 1961 (hereafter the Act) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)- Bengaluru-4 [hereafter Learned CIT(A), dated 23^rd September 2024 for A.Y. 2014-15. Since the issues arising in both the appeals are common and interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. First, we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2153/Bang/2024 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred, in making an addition of INR 60,79,020 to the total income of the Appellant on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred towards incentive payment for executive gain sharing plan.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the aforesaid amount on erroneous presumption that such amount debited to the Statement of Profit and Loss A/c is in the nature of Severance Pay without any cogent reasons.

3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred by not considering that payment to employees is in the nature of incentive and is accordingly eligible for deduction under section 37 read with section 43B of the Act as the same has been actually paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income.

4. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the Learned AO to compute the consequential interest on the assessed income as against the returned income.

The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other, The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, rescind, forgo or withdraw any of the above grounds of objection either before or during the course of proceedings in the interest of the justice.”

3. The assessee vide submission dated 15^th December 2025 further filed additional ground of appeal, bearing numbers as Ground 5 & 6 which read as under:

“Ground No. 5: That Vitae International Accounting Services Private Limited ought to be excluded from the final list of comparables since the company is not comparable.

Ground No. 6: That Allsec Technologies Limited, Microgenetics Systems Limited and R Systems International Limited ought to be included in the final list of comparables since the comparables are comparable.”

4. The assessee, in the application for admission of additional grounds, argued that the issues raised were fundamental to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground be admitted for adjudication.

5. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed the admission of the additional grounds of appeal, arguing that these grounds had not been raised before the lower authorities.

6. We have considered the application filed by the assessee seeking admission of the additional gr