##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 4551/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)

Mettler Toledo India v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – Amar Hill, Saki Vihar 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Road, Powai, Sakinaka Mumbai – 400020,

S.O., Mumbai – 400 072, Maharashtra Maharashtra

स्थायी लेखा सं ./ जीआइआर सं ./ PAN/GIR No: AABCM0779N Appellant/अपीला्वी .. Respondent/्ቚतिवादी Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Karishma Gosalia, ARs

Revenue by : Shri Satya Pal Kumar - CIT(DR)

Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.04.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated

22.05.2025 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3A)& 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 23.03.2021 for the

Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19.

P age | 2 ITA No. 4551/Mum/2025

A.Y. 2018-19 Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/

Hon’ble CIT(A) has:

Non-grant of refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax (’DDT’) paid:

1. erred in computing the tax at the rate of 20.36% on dividend paid, without providing the benefit of lower tax rate on dividends prescribed under the India- Switzerland tax treaty. Consequently, the learned AO and Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in

not granting the refund of excess DDT paid.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the

business of manufacturing and trading of precision measuring equipment and related services, software development, market support and business support services. The assessee company e-filed its return of income for the year declaring total income of Rs.80,98,52,990/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) on 08.04.2019 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. Though the International Transactions entered into by the assessee aggregated to Rs.216,67,82,126/-, reference had not been made to Transfer Pricing as the case did not fit in the parameter as per Instructions No.3/2016 and the TP issue had not been examined. After verifying the information furnished by the

assessee, the returned income of Rs 80,98,52,990/- was accepted. 4. Ground no.1 is related to non-granting of refund of excess

Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid of Rs. 25,17,61,855/- under section 115-O of the Act which was not allowed by the AO.On perusal of

P age | 3 ITA No. 4551/Mum/2025

A.Y. 2018-19 Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd.

the assessment order, it was noticed by the ld.CIT(A) in the course opf appellate proceedings that above ground of appeal taken by the appellant had not been discussed in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act at all. Therefore, according to him question of adjudicating the

same did not arise at all.

5. Before us, the ld.AR has contended that the issue of excess

refund was raised before the AO vide letter dated 03.03.2021 and 08.06.2020 for claiming the refund of excess DDT paid in the light of DTAA with Switzerland. However, neither the AO considered the same nor the ld.CIT(A) on merits. It is claimed that such a contention was made in the Statement of Facts while filing appeal which also had been reproduced by the ld.CIT(A).In support of the claim, the assessee placed reliance on Colorcon Asia P.Ltd in Tax appeal 5 of 2024(Bom)/Mitsui Kinzoku Components India P.Ltd in ITA no.3910/Del/2024,Giesecke and Devrient in ITA No. 7075-Del/2017 and Indian Oil Perponas Ltd 127 taxmann.com 389(Kol-ITAT)/Sopho

Technologies P.Ltd.in ITA NO.466/AHM/2025.

6. The ld.DR representing the Department admitted this fact

that neither the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) considered the claim of the

assessee.