NASDAQ CORPORATE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2681/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 July 2026AY 2022-236 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not considering the modified return filed in accordance with the UAPA. The assessment proceedings were pending when the modified return was filed, and the AO should have completed the assessment in line with the UAPA.

What were the facts?

The assessee entered into a Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (UAPA) with the CBDT covering the assessment year 2022-23. Despite filing a modified return and compliance reports as per the UAPA, the TPO and AO made transfer pricing adjustments.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO correctly disregarded the UAPA and made transfer pricing adjustments when the assessment year was covered by the agreement and a modified return was filed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CC,Section 92CD(3),Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Ms. Vaidhehi G., CA, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Divya K. J., CIT-DR
Hearing: 07.05.2026Pronounced: 30.07.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.AO, Assessment Unit, dated 23.09.2025 vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2025-26/1081033627(1) passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2022-23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

IT(TP)A No.2681/Bang/2025 Nasdaw Corporate Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 2 of 6

IT(TP)A No.2681/Bang/2025 Nasdaw Corporate Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 6

3.

At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had entered into a Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (UAPA) u/s 92CC of the Act with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on 26th March, 2025 covering Financial year 2021-22 to 2025-26. Considering AY 2022-23 is a covered year, the assessee filed the modified return of income on 19th June, 2025 in accordance with the terms of the UAPA for the aforesaid year. Further, it is submitted that in compliance with Rule 10-O of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the assessee filed the annual compliance report in Form 3CEF demonstrating compliance with the critical

IT(TP)A No.2681/Bang/2025 Nasdaw Corporate Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 4 of 6 assumptions and arm’s length pricing requirements as per the UAPA on 20th June, 2025. In accordance with Rule 10RA, the assessee filed a letter dated 2nd June, 2025 withdrawing the objections relating to covered transactions pending adjudication before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). The ld. DRP, vide its directions dated 10th September, 2025, duly accepted the withdrawal.

3.1 However, it is the contention of the assessee that the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) while passing the order giving effect (‘OGE’) (dated 19th September, 2025) to the directions of the ld. DRP, sustained the TP adjustment as per the original TP order and did not consider the fact that the year under review is covered by the UAPA. Subsequently, on 23rd September, 2025, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order taking into consideration the OGE passed by the TPO and thereby retaining the transfer pricing adjustment and consequently computing the tax demand.

4.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AO dated 23.09.2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

The ld. D.R. on the other hand fairly conceded that if the AY 2022-23 under consideration is a covered year then the revenue have no objection if the matter is remitted back to the file of the AO to give effect of UAPA.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Undisputedly, on perusal of the UAPA dated 26.03.2025, we observed that the assessee had entered into a Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (UAPA) u/s 92CC of the Act with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on 26th March, 2025 covering Financial year 2021-22 to 2025-26. Considering AY

IT(TP)A No.2681/Bang/2025 Nasdaw Corporate Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 6 2022-23 is a covered year, we take note of the fact that the assessee had filed the modified return of income on 19th June, 2025 in accordance with the terms of the UAPA for the aforesaid year. We also take note of the fact that the ld. DRP, vide its directions dated 10th September, 2025, had duly accepted the withdrawal. However, surprisingly, the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) while passing the order giving effect (‘OGE’) (dated 19th September, 2025) to the directions of the ld. DRP, sustained the TP adjustment as per the original TP order and did not consider the fact that the year under review is covered by the UAPA. Subsequently, on 23rd September, 2025, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order taking into consideration the OGE passed by the TPO and thereby retaining the transfer pricing adjustment and consequently computing the tax demand. The assessee had also filed a rectification application before the TPO as per section 154 of the Act on 16.02.2026 to delete the TP adjustment in full considering the terms of the UAPA were complied with. Surprisingly, the TPO vide his order dated 26.03.2026, rejected the rectification application and upheld the original TP adjustment thereby disregarding the UAPA entered into by the assessee.

6.1 It is apposite here to reproduce the relevant section 92CD(3) of the Act which states as under:

“4………..where the assessment or reassessment proceedings for an assessment year relevant to the previous year to which the agreement applies are pending on the date of filing of modified return in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Assessing Officer shall proceed to complete the assessment or reassessment proceedings in accordance with the agreement taking into consideration the modified return so furnished”.

Thus, as per the above provisions, the assessment proceedings for the AY 2022-23 was pending on the date of filing the modified return of income. However, in our considered opinion

IT(TP)A No.2681/Bang/2025 Nasdaw Corporate Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 6 of 6 the AO erred in not considering the modified return of income filed while completing the assessment proceedings. In the light of the above, we direct the AO/TPO to pass the assessment order for AY 2022-23 in line with the terms and conditions contained in the UAPA considering that the assessee has duly complied with all the terms of the UAPA for the AY 2022-23. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Keshav Dubey) Vice President Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 30th July, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

1.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 92CC

All 69 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →