IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.8750/DEL/2025 [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Metlife Global Operations Deputy Commissioner of Income Support Centre Private Limited. Tax, Circle-16(1), Paharpur Business Centre, Vs C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, 21 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-1100019 PAN-AAFCM5000N Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee by Shri Rajan Vohra, Adv. &

Shri Lekh Mehta, CA Respondent/Revenue by Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 03.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026

ORDER

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] dated 31.10.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 13.04.2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

Ground of Appeal No. 1: General:

1. has erred in upholding the actions of the learned Assessing Officer in not considering and allowing the Appellant's additional claim for refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by it without providing any cogent reasons;

Ground of Appeal Nos. 2 and 3: Maintainability of the Appellant's additional claim:

2. was not justified in upholding the order of the learned assessing officer which was passed without admitting and adjudicating the additional claim raised by the Appellant and passing a non- speaking order with respect to the aforesaid additional claim made by the Appellant;

3. has erred in holding that the Appellant's additional claim is not maintainable since the issue does not arise out of the impugned order under section 143(3) read with section 143(3A) read with section 143(3B) of the Act dated 13 April 2021 without appreciating that assessing authorities are entitled to admit additional claim/ ground and are bound to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee and therefore, ought to have appreciated that the additional claim is maintainable and ought to have been adjudicated upon;

4. has without prejudice to the above, failed to appreciate that since the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction is co-terminus with that of the assessing officer, the Appellant's additional claim ought to have been treated as made before the learned CIT(A) and therefore, should have been adjudicated upon;

Ground of Appeal Nos. 5 and 6: Allowability of the Appellant's additional claim for refund of excess DDT - Rs. 25,85,47,626:

5. ought to have appreciated that dividend paid by the Appellant to its foreign shareholders (viz. MetLife Solutions Pte. Ltd., Singapore) is liable to tax as per the beneficial tax rate of 10% as per Article 10 of the India-Singapore DAA as against tax rate of 20.358% prescribed under section 115-O of the Act as has been affirmed the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 5/2024 (Bombay HC)]

and thereby ought to have allowed refund of dividend distribution tax in excess of the 10% tax rate to the Appellant;

6. without prejudice to the above, the Appellant prays to the Hon'ble Tribunal to admit its claim for refund of excess dividend distribution tax ("DDT) paid by it as has been affirmed the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in case of Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 5/2024 (Bombay HC)] and adjudicate upon the same;

The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds of appeal and the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. We have heard rival submission in the light o