आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The DCIT, Circle-3(1), vs.

PIN – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081.

Telangana. Telangana.

PAN AAHCS9571J (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: CA P Murali Mohan Rao राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, for the assessment year 2020-2021, in pursuance to the Directions dated 27.05.2024 of the Disputes Resolution Panel-1, [in short “DRP”], Bengaluru, passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act.

2. The has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the final Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and u/s 1448 of the Act Dated 03.06.2024 by the AO and also the order passed u/s 92CA (3) dt 30.07.2023 by the TPO are bad in eyes of law and thus, unsustainable to the test of appeal.

2. Time limit for passing the order v/s 153 has lapsed

2.1. The Ld. AO erred in passing the final assessment order without considering the legal position that time limit for completion of assessment u/s 153 has lapsed, therefore the order passed is erroneous and bad in law.

2.2. The Ld. AO ought to have considered the law position that the time limit for passing the order has elapsed on 30.09.2023, as per section 153, so the impugned order is erroneous and bad in law.

2.3. The Ld. AO ought to have considered that the time limit prescribed u/s 153 would prevail over time limit prescribed u/s

144C. Therefore, the order passed is liable to be quashed.

2.4. The Ld. AO ought to have fairly appreciated the fact that, the assessment has to be completed within 18 months (shall be extended by 12 months in case of TΡΟ reference is made) as per Sec 153 of Income Tax Act.

3. Rejecting the T.P Documentation maintained by the assessee 3.1. The LD. AO erred in rejecting the TP documentation, benchmarking analysis and economic analysis submitted by the assessee by showing inappropriate reasons.

3.2. The Ld. AO erred in rejecting the TP documentation on certain unreasonable grounds by merely stating that there are certain defects and the comparables of the assessee are also not properly maintained, which ever merits are baseless and unsustainable.

3.3. The Ld. AO ought to have considered that Ld. TPO can determine the price only on invoking the provisions enumerated in the in clauses (a) to (d) of Sec 92C(3) of the Act

3.4. The Ld. AO ought also to have well appreciated actual facts that provisions of Section 92C(3) of the Act are not invoked by the assessee in the instant case.

4. Non consideration of segmental data and not making adjustment only to the extent of transactions with A.E.

4.1. The Ld. AO erred in not considering the segmental data and not making adjustment only to the extent of transactions with the Associated enterprises.

4.2. The Ld. AO erred in not following the set procedure laid down under the provisions of Section 92C of the Act relating to 'computation of Arm's length price'.

4.3. The Ld. AO ought to have considered the segmental information which provides more reliability on comparability factors with relevant operations of the tested party.

4.4. The Ld. TPO ought to have appreciated that the fundamental principle of transfer pricing is that the margins earned from covered transaction are required to be tested by benchmarking and as transactions with AEs are only 32.69% of the total sales made, entity wide margi