आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.917/Hyd/2024 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year:2020-21)

Shakti Hormann Private Vs. DCIT, Limited, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

PAN: AADCS4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement:

आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M:

The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 25/07/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal before us:

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) of the Act dated 25.07.2024 by the AO and also the order passed u/s 92CA (3) dt 30.07.2023 by the TPO are bad in the eyes of law and thus, unsustainable to the test of appeal.

2.0 The final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 153 of the Act.

2.1. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated that the time limit for completion of assessment u/s 153 has been lapsed, therefore the order passed is erroneous and bad-in-law.

2.2. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that time limit prescribed u/s 153 would prevail over and above the time limit prescribed u/s 144C. Therefore the Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s.

144B of the Income Tax Act is Void and bad in law

2.3. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that, the assessment has to be completed within 18 months (shall be extended by twelve months, if any reference u/s 92CA is made) as per Section 153 of the Act.

2.4. The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that time limit for the completion of assessment u/s 153 has lapsed on 30-09-2023 and hence the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) is invalid and bad-in-law.

3. Erred in upholding the upward adjustment of Arm's Length Price for Rs. 28,87,492/- in respect of payment of Royalty

3.1. The Ld. AO erred in upholding the metho followed by the TPO for determination of "Arms length price of Royalty payment.

3.2. The Ld. AO erred in confirming the adjustment made u/s 92CA(3) of the Act for Rs. 28,87,492/-.

3.3 The Ld. AO has erred in holding that the assessee's inability to provide sufficient evidence and benchmarking details for the current year justifies the TPO's decision with regard to the determination of Arm's length price of the Royalty.

3.4 The Ld. AO erred in rejecting the objection raised with regard of the determination of Royalty by the TPO by observing that the assessee did not provide any documentation showing a direct and substantial benefit that would justify the Royalty payment.

3.5 The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the licensor i.e., Hormann KG Verkaufsgesellschaft is a leading manufacture of High-speed doors in the international market and that the assessee company is also manufacturing the same product by using the Technology & know-how of the licensor company for which the assessee is liable to pay consideration to the licensor.

3.6 The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that for using the technology & Know-how and trademark of licensor company the assessee paid the Royalty to the licensor.

3.7 The Ld. AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee company has paid royalty of 100 Euros to licensor company for each sell of High-speed doors which are manufactured by the technical specifications and standards as per the agreement.

3.8 The Ld. AO ought to have appreciat