DODLA DAIRY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITTPA 1301/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 November 2025AY 2021-22107 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dodla Dairy Limited, filed appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 and 2021-22 against orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(13) and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals involve common issues. The assessee is engaged in procuring, processing, and selling milk and milk products across India, operating multiple processing plants and chilling centers. For AY 2018-19, the assessee e-filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 35,30,28,430 and its case was selected for scrutiny. For AY 2021-22, the assessee declared a total taxable income of Rs. 133.12 crores and claimed a deduction under Section 80IB(11A) of Rs. 38.77 crores pertaining to its eligible units.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for verification of the assessee's claim regarding the filing of 'Form 10CCBs' for 31 eligible units for the deduction under Section 80IB(11A). The assessee provided digitally signed 'Form 10CCBs' with acknowledgement numbers, supported by an affidavit, indicating compliance. However, the AO's report stated that only 23 forms were available, some unsigned and without acknowledgement numbers. The Tribunal found that the assessee's evidence dislodged the AO's claim, but due to the conflicting reports, a verification by the AO was deemed necessary. If the assessee's claim is found in order, the adverse inferences drawn regarding the deduction will be vacated. The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 3 in this regard. Alternative contentions regarding specific units were left open. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 4 were dismissed as not pressed. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the final assessment order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is bad in law and liable to be quashed, considering the assessee's contentions regarding the DRP's directions lacking a valid Documentation Identification Number (DIN) and contravening CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The assessee argues the DRP's directions are invalid, making the final assessment order illegal and void. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether the DRP erred in upholding the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/AO's adjustment of INR 19,43,26,338 to specified domestic transactions (SDTs) concerning inter-unit transfer of milk, and whether the economic analysis in the TP documentation was wrongly rejected. The assessee argues its economic analysis was maintained in good faith and with due diligence, and the TPO/AO/DRP disregarded facts regarding the determination of overhead/inter-unit transfer rates and the legislative intent of Section 80IB. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 3. Whether the AO/DRP erred in disallowing expenditure of INR 66,96,000 under Section 144, and disallowing expenditure under Section 14A, and disallowing interest expenditure of INR 208,333 under Section 37. The assessee contends borrowed funds were used for plant and machinery, not for investment generating exempt income, and the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 4. Whether the AO/DRP erred in not granting deduction under Section 80JJAA amounting to INR 35,67,060. The assessee argues the deduction claimed comprises claims for AY 2018-19 and AY 2017-18. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 5. Whether the DRP erred in issuing directions without a valid DIN and in contravention of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. The assessee argues this makes the final assessment order illegal and void. 6. Whether the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limitation prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Act, making it barred by limitation and void ab initio. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 7. Whether the TP adjustment with respect to the deduction claimed under Section 80IB(11A) to the extent of INR 2,05,64,816 pertains to the transfer of processed milk/milk products to end customers, on which actual profits were earned. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 80IB(11A),Section 92CA,Section 80JJAA,Section 144,Section 14A,Section 37,Section 153(1),Section 153(4),Section 80IB,Section 80IA,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “A” Bench, Hyderabad

Pronounced: 26/11/2025

""त रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee company are directed against the respective orders passed by the Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of 2 ITA TP 466/Hyd/2022 and 1301/Hyd/2024 Dodla Dairy Limited.

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 24.02.2020 and 20.01.2022 for

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 →