IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.2698/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

TransUnion International Inc., DCIT (IT)-4(1)(2), C/o TransUnion International Inc. Air India Building, Nariman Point, 19^th Floor, Tower 2B, One Indiabulls Mumbai-400021.

Vs.

Centre, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

PAN: AADCT0669C Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. a/w Rajan Vora, Nikhil Tiwari, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampurna- CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 03.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the final order of assessment passed by the DCIT (IT), Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24.08.2022 for Assessment Year(AY) 2017- 18. The assessee is contending the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) through various grounds of appeal and also through the additional grounds vide letter dated 24.08.2023 and 29.07.2023.

2. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) during the course of hearing submitted that for the purpose of adjudication, the additional ground no. 13 & 14 raised vide letter dated 29.07.2024 may be considered. The ld AR further submitted that if these grounds are held in favour of the assessee then the main grounds and rest of the additional grounds would become academic. The ld AR also submitted that to adjudicate the additional grounds no new facts need to be examined and the issue involved is purely legal. The effective additional grounds raised by the assessee reads as under:

“13. erred in not passing the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP Directions were received as per the Section 144C (13) of the Act and thereby the order passed by the Ld. AO is time barred and liable to be quashed.

14. without prejudice to the ground no.21, erred in not appreciating the fact that the DRP directions are issued beyond time limit provided under Section 144C of the Act and thus, the DRP proceedings are time barred and bad in law thereby resulting subsequent assessment proceedings should also be bad in law.”

3. The brief facts in this case is that the assessee is a company incorporated in India and tax resident of USA and is engaged in the business of Credit Information Services in multiple jurisdictions across the Globe. The assessee acts as the Investment Holding Company for the group and holding investments all across the Globe. During the year under consideration, the assessee had transferred the shares held by its in Indian Group Companies namely TransUnion CIBIL Ltd. and TransUnion Software Services Pvt. Ltd. by way of gift to its group company in Mauritius i.e. TransUnion Mauritius Ltd. The assessee treated the transfer as not taxable in India as per the provisions of section 47(iii) of the Act and accordingly did not offer the income while filing the return of income on 29.11.2017. The assessee also filed the application dated 17.05.2017 with the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) for determining of taxability of the transaction under the Act but has withdrawn the said application since considerable time has elapsed from the date of filing of application. The AAR acceded to the request and the application was withdrawn vide order dated 23.12.2019. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The case was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) who determined the Arm's Length Price of the impugned transaction at Rs. 3,09,16,61,479/-. The AO subsequently issued notice under section 142(1) calling on the assessee to furnish details pertaining to the transfer of shares. After examining the various details filed by the assessee the AO held that the transaction undertaken by the assessee was not a gift without consideration as clai