IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.290 to 294/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 - 2021-22 Edgeverve Systems Limited, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Plot No.44, Hosur Main Road, Income Tax, Electronic City, Circle – 2(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore.

PAN – AADCE 6300 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Kincha, CA Revenue by : Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Date of hearing : 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These five appeals filed at the instance of the assessee, are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the Ld. CIT(A)) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act) for A.Ys. 2017-18 to

2021-22, which were heard together.

2. First, we take up ITA No. 290/Bang/2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017- 18 as the lead case. The assessee, in the memo of appeal, has raised four grounds bearing numbers as 1.1, 2.1 to 2.3, 3.1 to 3.4 and Ground No. 4.

3. The assessee vide application undated also raised an additional ground of appeal contending that taxes paid in foreign countries which are not eligible for credit under section 90/91 of the Act should be allowed as business expenses under section 37 of the Act.

3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional ground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the appellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly assessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground be admitted for adjudication.

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

5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 has held as under:

“ Under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. The power of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals is thus expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the tax liability of an assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial decision given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of the item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier.

5.1 From the above, it is clear that limiting the Tribunal’s powers to only those issues that came up before the Commissioner (Appeals) is too narrow. The Tribunal does have the authority to allow or reject new grounds. Since the issue in the additional ground is important to properly assess the assessee’s income, and as per the judgment mentioned above, we accept the new ground raised by the assessee. Now that we have accepted the additional grounds of appeal, we will look into the specific issues raised by the assessee in the original and additional grounds of appeal.

6. The Gr