DEUTSCHE INVESTMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

2 Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. for furnishing written submissions and evidences in support of grounds of appeal

. In response to these four hearing notices, the appellant requested for adjournment and furnishing additional grounds of appeal. Then, NFAC Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) issued an enablement of communication window notices on 4.11.2022, but there was no compliance from appellant. During the calendar year 2024 and 2025,

9. (nine) times the notices were sent for fixing hearing. All these times, appellant had requested for adjournment. Since more than four years elapsed, the Ld. CIT(A) went ahead to adjudicate the issues based on the assessment order and grounds of appeal which was not substantiated by appellant company. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Ld. AO has issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire calling for relevant details/documents. In his order, Ld. CIT(A) observed that Ld. AO called for the details of expenses of Global Management Charges, and the appellant company has filed a copy ‘Service Agreement’ only, but did not elaborate nor filed evidences relating to nature of expenditure and whether there is business necessity to spend the same. Similarly, the expenditure relating to ‘System Infrastructure Support’ also, the details and nature of expenditure was not explained by appellant company. It was also observed that the appellant company has not provided the details of work carried out by the service provider and did not respond to the query of Ld. AO as to why two different entities were providing similar services. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the appellant company went on asking for the adjournments without giving replies to the queries raised by Ld. AO/Ld. CIT(A). Meanwhile, the appellant company has raised two more additional grounds of appeal with respect to Dividend Distribution Tax under 115-O of the Act and requested the appellate authority to direct the AO to allow the deduction relating to Education Cess and Higher Education Cess paid by appellant company which cannot be disallowed under section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Finally, at page 15 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), NAFC gave table depicting the dates of hearing date fixed and reply filed by appellant asking for adjournment on various dates spanning four years. Finally, the 3. Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd.

Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and others 10 CTR 354 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) and dismissed the appeal of appellant company. As far as the issue of correct TDS credit should be given, the Ld. CIT(A) gave a direction to verify and provide correct TDS as per law. Similarly, with respect to giving credit to correct payment Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), the Ld. AO was directed to give credit to DDT after verifying the payment made by appellant company. Since, the levy of interest under section 115P is consequential to determination of correct income to be computed, it is consequential and the Ld. AO was directed to follow the provisions of law.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/10/2025.