DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S BT GLOBAL COMMUNICATION INDIA P LTD., MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the MAP resolution mandated the withdrawal of the protective adjustment for AY 2011-12. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a protective adjustment made by the TPO. The assessee presented a resolution of dispute under the MAP with the United Kingdom.
What were the issues?
Whether a protective adjustment made by the TPO should be deleted in light of a Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolution with the United Kingdom.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are preferred against the order dated 21.12.2015 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act]' pertaining to A.Y 2011-12. Both the appeal and cross objections were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The solitary grievance raised by the Revenue is that the DRP erred in deleting the adjustment made on protective basis amounting to Rs. 93,81,11,053/-.
At the very outset, the ld. AR submitted the Resolution of Dispute under MAP with the United Kingdom in the case the assessee. The ld. AR also furnished a copy of the order giving effect to the resolution passed by the competent United Kingdom Tax Communication.
We have carefully considered the Resolution of Dispute and the order giving effect to the resolution passed by the competent United Kingdom Tax Communication.
As per the resolution of dispute under MAP with United Kingdom dated 29.01.2019, it has been resolved that for AY 2011-12, protective adjustment made by the TPO would be withdrawn in toto, i.e, there will not be any adjustment in A.Y 2011-12 on protective basis. The Addl. CIT, Special Range – 2, New Delhi vide order dated 27.04.2018, gave effect to the resolution passed by the competent United Kingdom Tax Communication under MAP and accordingly, modified the order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act, thereby determining total assessed income after MAP at NIL.
Considering the aforesaid order, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as having become infructuous.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in CO No. 152/DEL/2016 are dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2018.
More judgments on Section 144C(3)
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Neha Hiranand Motwani, Nashik vs ITO International Tax, NashikITA 1570/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Atc Tires Private Limited, Mumbai vs The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 6468/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026