IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6570/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24)

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/o OOCL (India) Private Limited, ICC Chambers, 5^th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 PAN : AAACO5679E v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent

6^th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Ms. Kajal Bhanushali Revenue by : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 13/01/2026 Date of Order - 19/01/2026

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned final assessment order dated 12.08.2025, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 02.07.2025 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai, (“learned DRP”), under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2023-24.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Orient Overseas Container Line Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant) craves leave to prefer appeal against the order dated 12 August 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International taxation) - Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. AO') under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pursuant to the directions dated 02 July 2025 of the Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP') on the following grounds, each of which are independent of, and without prejudice to one another.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law:

Assessment proceeding is non-jurisdictional

1. The notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act being issued by Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax / Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi instead of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) - Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai] is devoid of jurisdiction.

Assessment proceeding is time-barred

2. The impugned assessment order is time barred, being passed after the time limit provided under section 153 of the Act. That it is settled position of law, that section 144C and section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and the overall time limit to complete the assessment is circumscribed by section 153 of the Act. GST amount cannot be considered for the purpose of computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Act

3. The Ld. AO and Ld. DRP has erred in including an amount of Rs. 8,34,49,094, being the amount of GST charged, to the gross revenue for the purpose of computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Act.

4. The Ld. AO and Ld. DRP has erred in not following the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of Hon'ble Income-tax Appellant Tribunal (ITAT) in Appellant's own case for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2020-21 and 2022-23. wherein it has been held that service tax/GST is not includible for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44B of the Act.

5. The Ld. AO and Ld. DRP have breached the principle of consistency and principle of judicial discipline by not following the aforesaid decisions and directions.

Incorrect computation of book profits under section 115JB

6. The Ld.AO has erred in computing book profits under section 115JB at Rs. 1,41,14,48,399 without appreciating that section 115JB is not applicable to the Appellant in view of Explanation 4A to section 115JB(1).

Short grant of credit of Tax deducted at source (TDS")

7. The Ld. AO has erred in restricting the credit of TDS to Rs. 1,56,36,458, as against TDS of Rs. 1,60,67,515 claimed by the App