MINDTICKLE INTERACTIVE MEDIA PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7 PNE-C-1 (58), PUNE

ITTPA 242/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 September 2026AY 2022-2331 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mindtickle Interactive Media Private Limited, filed an appeal against the assessment order for AY 2022-23, passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order stemmed from the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) order, which upheld the draft assessment order. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of INR 13,89,31,279/- based on the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) order. The assessee's total returned income was INR 35,51,74,070/-, and the final assessed income was INR 49,41,05,349/-. The international transactions under scrutiny included provision of software development services, stock-based compensation, and purchase of a licensed platform.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided on the grounds as follows: Ground A-1 regarding the validity of the assessment order was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee. For Ground No. 4, concerning the inclusion/exclusion of comparables, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground partly. Specifically, it directed the inclusion of Maveric System Ltd. and CES Ltd. as comparables, following precedents from ITAT Mumbai and ITAT Bangalore respectively. It upheld the rejection of Data Collection Infotech (India) Ltd. as functionally non-comparable, citing a previous ITAT decision. For Ground No. 5, which dealt with the rejection of certain comparables, the Tribunal allowed it partly, directing the inclusion of Kcube Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and Toxsl Technologies Private Limited as functionally comparable. The Tribunal noted that Batchmaster Software Pvt. Ltd. was correctly rejected due to trading activity and lack of segmental accounts. All other grounds were dismissed as un-adjudicated. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order is valid, considering the outer time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act for proceedings involving a reference to the TPO, as per the ruling in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court)? The assessee argued that the final assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it null and void. The revenue did not provide arguments on this ground as the assessee withdrew it. 2. Whether the AO/DRP erred in recomputing the transfer price of international transactions relating to software development services, despite no violations of Section 92C(3) of the Act? The assessee contended that the addition of INR 13,89,31,279/- was unjustified. The revenue argued that the TPO's adjustment was correct. 3. Whether the AO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the software development services transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) were at Arm's Length Price (ALP)? The assessee argued that no addition was warranted. The revenue argued otherwise. 4. Whether specific companies (TVS Next Ltd, Cybage Software Pvt Ltd, Games2Win India Pvt Ltd, Aabsys Information Technology Pvt Ltd, MPS Ltd, Happiest Minds Technologies Limited, Rishabh Software Pvt Ltd, IDS Infotech Ltd, Robosoft Technologies Pvt Ltd, Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kcube Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd, Toxsl Technologies Private Limited, Maveric System Ltd, Batchmaster Software Pvt Ltd, Data Collection Infotech (India) Ltd, and CES Ltd) were correctly included or excluded as comparables for determining ALP, considering functional comparability, FAR basis, turnover, employee costs, and other filters? The assessee argued for the exclusion of certain companies and inclusion of others, citing functional dissimilarity, turnover differences, and incorrect application of filters. The revenue argued for the inclusion of certain companies and exclusion of others based on their analysis.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 144C(1),Section 153,Section 92C(3),Section 92CA(3),Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee Mindtickle Interactive Media Private Limited against assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for AY 2022-23 on 29.11.2025 emanating from Dispute Resolution Panel‟s order (DRP) dated 21.11.2025 emanating from draft assessment order, passed u/s 144C(1) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “A. Validity of assessment order The assessee submits that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [140 taxmann.com 304]

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,299 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →