* THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN + WRIT PETITION No.4061 of 2024 % Date: 25.09.2025 # Deloittee Consulting India Private Limited … Petitioner v.

$ The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, India and another … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Jahangir D.Mistri, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.Pratik Reddy ^ Counsel for respondents : Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department < GIST:

 HEAD NOTE:

? CASES REFERRED:

1. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178

2. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom)

3. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) (paras 15 to 17)

4. [2024] 169 taxmann.com 673 (Delhi)

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.4061 of 2024 ORDER (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh)

Mr. Jahangir D.Mistri, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.Pratik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department appears for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

“(a) Quashing the Impugned reassessment order passed by the 1^st Respondent under Section 147 r/w Section 144B of the Act dated 16.01.2024 in DIN No.ITBA/AST/S /147/2023-24/1059794711(1) for Assessment Year 2018- 19 in PAN:AABCD0476H as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Section 92CC r/w Section 92CD of the Income tax Act, 1961, Rules 10-M, 10-O, 10-P and 10-R of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and the Advance Pricing Agreement dated

15.02.2023;

(b) Declaring the impugned reassessment order as illegal, void ab initio and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India;

(c) Directing the 1^st Respondent to accept the modified return of income filed on 28.03.2023 under section 92CD of the Act;

(d) Directing the 1^st Respondent to recompute the total income in accordance with law and issue appropriate refund if any;

(e) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the extraordinary circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

Facts

3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in India and during the year of assessment, it was engaged in the business of providing Information Technology Consulting Services to Deloitte Consulting LLP and Deloitte Consulting India Projects LLC.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed its return of income electronically on 30.11.2018 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring a total income of Rs.720,43,70,980/-. It was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide an Intimation dated 24.02.2020 (Ex.1) in terms of which an addition of Rs.7,89,84,031/- under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the Act was made. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the CIT (A) and the same was dismissed by an order dated 31.07.2023 (Ex.2) based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Limited vs. CIT, [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178, by which the issue of belated payment of employees contribution towards provident fund reached finality.

5. Subsequently the return was selected for scrutiny assessment under e-Assessment Scheme for examining the issues of i) claim of any other amount allowable as deduction in schedule BP; ii) Default in TDS and disallowance for such default; iii) ICDS compliance and adjustment and iv) deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A. The then Assessing Officer, after consideration of the responses filed by the petitioner, completed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25.02.2021 (Ex.3) by accepting the return of income without making any addition/

disallowance. It is stated that after issuance of Intimation under Section 143(1) and completion of scrutiny assessment und