MAHINDRA OVERSEAS INVESTMENT COMPANY (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-CPC BENGALURU , MUMBAI

Date of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2019-20. 1. GROUND NO. 1: NON-ADJUDICATION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND BY LD. CIT(A):

2 Mahindra Overseas Investment Company (Mauritius) Ltd, Mumbai 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not entertaining / adjudicating the additional ground namely ground number 4 filed during the course of appellate proceedings for the alleged reason that the said ground is not coming from the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) which has been challenged in the said appeal.

1.2. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have considered that what has been challenged in the additional ground is the incorrect charging of tax rate applicable to dividend income of a foreign company and the same is evident from the intimation passed u/s. 143(1) and therefore the additional ground / issue arose from the said intimation only.

1.3. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that since all facts relevant for adjudication of additional ground were available on records, the additional ground ought to have been adjudicated on merits.

1.4. The Appellant prays that the order passed u/s. 250 declining to decide the additional ground namely ground number 4 be held to invalid and that the Id. CIT(A) be directed to decide the said additional ground on merits.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO 1;

2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in taxing the dividend received by the Appellant at the rate of 40% instead of 20% as applicable u/s, 115A of the Act.

2.2. The Id. AO failed to appreciate and ought to have considered that by virtue of s. 115A of the Act, the special rate of 20% is applicable to a foreign company irrespective of it being a tax resident in India.

3 Mahindra Overseas Investment Company (Mauritius) Ltd, Mumbai 2.3. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the dividend offered to tax by the Appellant be taxed at the rate of 20% applying provisions of s. 115A of the Act.

GENERAL The Appellant craves leaves to add to, alter and/or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings, if deemed appropriate.

2. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in non-adjudication of additional ground taken by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A)

In this regard, we have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before us and the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

4 Mahindra Overseas Investment Company (Mauritius) Ltd, Mumbai 4. Ld. DR argued that even an additional ground cannot be entertained by Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee has not filed the revised return and supported his arguments by referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd Vs. CIT 2006, 284 ITR 323 (SC).