ALTERA DIGITAL HEALTH (INDIA) LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALLSCRIPTS (INDIA) LLP),VADODARA V. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 359/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary contention was regarding the transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO, which added Rs. 3,94,09,319/- to the assessee's income, claiming that the international transactions were not at arm's length. The Tribunal examined the functional comparability of the companies selected by the TPO and found them to be functionally different from the assessee, leading to the decision to exclude these comparables and delete the transfer pricing adjustment. The Tribunal also addressed issues related to the computation of income under Section 10AA and the imposition of interest under Sections 234A and 234C of the Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778948 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: GlobalLogic India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Headstrong Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Microsoft India (R&D) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, DCIT v. Microsoft India (R&D) (P.) Ltd., Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, Philips India Ltd. v. DCIT, Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. v. DCIT, Infogain India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1951
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Depreciation; TDS; Related party transaction
• Section: 143(3); 154; 10AA; 92C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) 8th Floor, Office No. 801 Atlantis Heights, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Road, Vadodara Subhanpura, Vadodara-390023, Gujarat, India PAN: ABHFA9124B (Appellant) Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi and Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddhi Maru,& Ms.Tejal Saraf ARs. Revenue Represented: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 09-10-2025 Date of pronouncement : 15-10-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (in short “Ld. CIT(DRP-2)”), Mumbai-2 vide order dated 24.04.2022 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. ITA No: 359/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 2 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: Each of the grounds of the appeal are independent and without prejudice to the others General Ground 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP) erred in confirming the addition proposed by the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AG) Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) of INR 3.354.09.319/- to the income of the Appellant The Appellant prays that the assessment proceedings be held as bad in law and as such deserve to be quashed. Transfer Pricing Adjustment in relation to provision of software development services 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO following the directions of Ld. DRP, erred in confirming the addition of INR 3,94,09,319/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction in relation to provision of software development services by the Appellant is not at arm's length price as envisaged under the income-tax Act, 1951 (The Act) The Appellant prays that the Lo. TPO be directed to accept the book value of the aforesaid international transactions as the arm's length price and accordingly, the Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment ought to be deleted 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Lid. AD/ Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, erred in disregarding the fact that the Appellant has duly complied with the provisions of Section 92C(1) and 92C(2) of the Act and thus the Ld. TPO earned in disregarding the transfer pricing benchmarking analysis earned out by the Appellant in relation to the international transaction of the provision of software development services to its Associated Enterprises (AES) The Appellant prays that the Ld. TPO be directed to accept the transfer pricing benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant be accepted and consequently the TP adjustment be deleted. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AD/Ld. TPO. following the directions of Ld. DRP, has erred in applying/ modifying certain filters while undertaking the transfer pricing Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 3 benchmarking analysis. In doing so, the Ld. DRP/ Ld. AD/ Ld. TPO has rejected functionally comparable companies and accepted certain functionally dissimilar companies. The Appellant prays that the filters applied/modified by the Ld. TPO be rejected and the transfer pricing benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant be accepted and consequently the TP adjustment be deleted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, has erred in applying an arbitrary turn over filter of 10 times lesser and 10 times higher than the turnover of the Appellant, in doing so, the Ld. DRP/Ld. AD/Ld. TPO has rejected functionally comparable companies selected by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the arbitrary turnover filter adopted by the Ld. TPO be rejected and the functionally comparable companies, as selected by the Appellant in its TP study report be accepted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, has erred in selecting functionally dissimilar companies and excluding functionally similar companies, In doing so, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO/ Ld. DRP have erred in disregarding Appellant's submission with respect to non-comparability of companies additionally selected by the Ld. TPO. The Appellant prays that the functional dissimilar companies be rejected and the functionally similar companies be accepted in the set of comparable companies 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, have erred in considering Magnasoft Consulting India Private Limited as a comparable company to the Appellant even though it does not pass the related party transactions ('RPT) filter of RPT to Sales less than 25%. The Appellant prays that Magnasoft Consulting India Private Limited be rejected as a comparable company. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, have erred in considering R Systems International Limited as a comparable company to the Appellant even though it follows different financial year vis-a-vis that of the Appellant. The Appellant prays that R Systems International Limited be rejected as a comparable company. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 4 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, have erred in not granting the economic adjustment with respect to differences on account of risk assumed and differences in functional profile between the comparables companies vis-à-vis the Appellant while determining the arm's length price of the impugned international transaction. The Appellant prays that the Ld. TPO be directed to grant the risk adjustment sought by the Appellant. Corporate Tax Additions 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AD erred in not granting the deduction under section 10AA of the Act of INR 1,35,00,000 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income and consequentially, erred in computing the total assessed income after deductions as INR 75,44,66,910 (instead of INR 74,09,66,913) in the computation sheet The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to kindly grant the requisite deduction under section 10AA of the Act. 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in computing an interest of INR 2,64,380 under section 234A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the interest of INR 2,64,380 computed under section 234A of the Act. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in computing an interest of INR 23,048 under section 234C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the interest of INR 23,048 computed under section 234C of the Act. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in granting a lesser credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS') of INR 51,842 instead of INR 63,086 as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant the correct TDS credit of INR 63,086 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 5 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in incorrectly computing the deemed total income under section 115JC of the Act as INR 75,44,66,910 instead of INR 71,50,57,590 as computed by the Appellant in the return of income. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to kindly compute the deemed total income under section 115JC of the Act as INR 71,50,57,590, 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act The above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal members to decide these according to the law. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a firm, filed its return of income on 29/11/2018 declaring income of Rs.70,14,30,160/-, which was later revised on 29/03/2019 at Rs.70,15,57,590/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had entered into international transactions which were reported in Form 3CEB. The matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer who, after examining the transactions, held that the profit level indicator of the assessee was not within the arm’s length range. Accordingly, an upward adjustment of Rs. 3,94,09,319/- was proposed. Another issue examined during the scrutiny was the substantial mismatch between the closing written down value (WDV) of assets in the preceding year and the opening WDV in the current year. The assessee submitted that the difference arose on account of the conversion of Allscripts India Pvt. Ltd. into a Limited Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 6 Liability Partnership on 21/03/2017. Due to the limitation of the ITR-5 utility, depreciation was auto-calculated for the full year instead of being restricted to the proportionate period. The assessee clarified that the excess depreciation computed in the ITR had already been added back in the computation of income for A.Y. 2017-18 and provided reconciliations to demonstrate that the opening WDV for A.Y. 2018-19 was correct as per law. After examining the submissions and reconciliations, the explanation of the assessee was found satisfactory and no adjustment was made on this issue. 4. In respect of the transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft order. The DRP, after detailed consideration, rejected the objections specifically those relating to application of turnover filter, functional comparability of selected companies, and claim for risk or economic adjustments. The DRP upheld the findings of the TPO in entirety and directed the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment accordingly. Following the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,94,09,319/-. The returned income of Rs. 70,15,57,590/- was therefore enhanced by the said amount and assessed at Rs. 74,09,66,910/- under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 7 6. Before us, the counsel for the assessee with respect to Ground Numbers 2 to 9 relating to transfer pricing additions in relation to provision of software development services submitted that the assessee is a captive software service provider engaged in rendering software development services exclusively to its Associated Enterprise. During the relevant year, the assessee earned an operating margin of 15.25% from these services. For benchmarking the international transaction, the assessee adopted the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method with Operating Profit/Operating Cost as the Profit Level Indicator. In its transfer pricing study, the assessee had selected eight comparables and computed an arm’s length margin range of 5.98% to 7.32%. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected certain comparables selected by the assessee, he introduced additional comparables, and arrived at a final set of twelve comparables with a margin range of 15.91% to 16.50% and a median of 16.29%. Based on this, a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,94,09,319/- was made. The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the adjustment, leading to the present appeal before this Tribunal. The counsel submitted that certain comparables introduced by the TPO ought to be excluded as they were functionally different and not comparable to the assessee, which is a captive software service provider. With respect to Kellton Tech Solutions Ltd. ( a comparable adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer Officer), it was submitted that this company is a product-based company engaged in development of its own proprietary software, namely the IoT- enabled artificial intelligence platform called “Optima.” The assessee pointed out that Kellton derives significant revenues from Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 8 hardware and maintenance services, constituting nearly 40% of its total revenue, and also carried inventory and consumed material during the relevant year. These features clearly show that it is engaged in diversified activities such as digital transformation, blockchain, artificial intelligence, ERP, and other IT services, which are not comparable to pure captive software development services. Further, Kellton owned significant intangibles such as goodwill of Rs. 9.62 crores. The company had also undergone extraordinary events in the form of acquisition of Planetpro, a U.S.-based firm providing customer relationship management services, which significantly impacted its operations and margins. The counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in GlobalLogic India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi - Trib.), wherein Kellton Tech was excluded from the list of comparables on similar grounds, and on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in Headstrong Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 68 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi - Trib.), where a similar comparable was excluded due to extraordinary events in the nature of acquisitions. Based on these factors, it was argued that Kellton Tech should be excluded from the final set of comparables. Regarding Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. ( another comparable adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer Officer), it was argued that the company is primarily engaged in wholesale trading of packaged software, which is evident from the disclosures in its financial statements and annual return describing its principal activity as “Wholesale Trade Services – Packaged Software.” Magnasoft had also shown purchase and consumption of inventories and closing stock of products, as well as revenue Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 9 recognition policies for sale of software products. Further, it was engaged in geospatial services, but no segmental reporting was available for its different activities. The counsel submitted that such trading and distribution of packaged software is functionally different from the captive software development services provided by the assessee. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Microsoft India (R&D) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi), wherein companies engaged in the sale of software products were directed to be excluded from comparables for software development service providers. It was further pointed out that the Department’s Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DCIT v. Microsoft India (R&D) (P.) Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 200 (SC). Based on these authorities, it was prayed that Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. also be excluded from the final list of comparables. As regards Interglobe Technology Quotient Ltd. ( a third comparable adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer Officer), the counsel submitted that it is functionally different as it operates as a distributor of “Travelport,” a global technology company engaged in the travel commerce industry. The financials of Interglobe show that nearly 99% of its revenue is derived from Travelport, and its entire business model revolves around distribution of travel technology products. The company had only one segment, namely travel technology, which is incomparable to captive software development services. Moreover, Interglobe’s employee cost was merely around 6% of its revenue, while for the assessee, employee cost accounted for more than 65% of its revenue, which demonstrates that there was a fundamental Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 10 difference in business models. The services provided by Interglobe were thus in the nature of distribution services and not software development services. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Mumbai Tribunal in Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, NFAC (ITA No. 2496/Mum/2022, order dated 24.10.2022 for AY 2018-19) and Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 510/Mum/2022, order dated 12.07.2022 for AY 2017-18), where similar functionally different comparables were excluded. The counsel submitted that once these companies, namely Kellton Tech Solutions Ltd., Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., and Interglobe Technology Quotient Ltd., are excluded from the final set of comparables, the assessee’s operating margin of 15.25% would fall within the arm’s length range prescribed under section 92C of the Act. Consequently, no transfer pricing adjustment would survive and the entire addition of Rs. 3,94,09,319/- made on account of software development services deserves to be deleted. 7. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the DRP and Assessing Officer in their respective orders. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Before us, the assessee contended that it is a captive software service provider rendering software development services exclusively to its Associated Enterprise and earning an operating margin of 15.25%. For benchmarking, it had applied the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and selected eight comparables, arriving at an arm’s length margin of 5.98% to 7.32%. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 11 The TPO, however, altered the set of comparables and arrived at a median margin of 16.29%, resulting in the transfer pricing adjustment. The assessee has challenged the inclusion of Kellton Tech Solutions Ltd., Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., and Interglobe Technology Quotient Ltd. With respect to Kellton Tech Solutions Ltd., we are of the considered view that from the annual report and other material on record, it is evident that the company is functionally different. Kellton is engaged in development of its own proprietary software, namely “Optima,” which is an IoT- enabled AI platform. Further, nearly 40% of its revenue is derived from hardware and maintenance services, it owns significant intangibles, and during the year it had undertaken an acquisition of Planetpro leading to extraordinary growth in revenues and margins. The company is thus engaged in product development and diversified IT services, unlike the assessee, which is a simple captive software service provider. The Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in Global Logic India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2022] 134 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi - Trib.) and in Headstrong Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 68 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi - Trib.) has held that companies engaged in product development or those affected by extraordinary events like acquisitions cannot be compared with captive software service providers. In the light of these precedents, we are of the view that Kellton Tech Solutions Ltd. is required to be excluded. Coming to Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., we observe that the financials show that it is engaged primarily in wholesale trading of packaged software and also in providing geospatial services, with inventories, purchase of stock-in-trade, and no segmental reporting. Its principal description in the annual Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 12 return is “Wholesale Trade Services – Packaged Software.” This evidently shows that the company is functionally different from the assessee, which provides only software development services to its AE. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Microsoft India (R&D) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi) has held that companies engaged in sale of software products cannot be compared to software service providers, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the Department in DCIT v. Microsoft India (R&D) (P.) Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 200 (SC). Thus, in our view, Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. also deserves to be excluded. With respect to Interglobe Technology Quotient Ltd., we observe that the material on record shows that the company is engaged in distribution of “Travelport” travel technology solutions and derives nearly 99% of its revenues from that activity. It is primarily a distributor and not a software service provider. The employee cost of the company is only about 6% of revenue, in contrast to the assessee’s 65%, which demonstrates that the business model is different. The Mumbai Tribunal in Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, NFAC (ITA No. 2496/Mum/2022, (order dated 24.10.2022) for AY 2018-19 and in Varian Medical Systems International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 510/Mum/2022, (order dated 12.07.2022) for AY 2017-18 has excluded such functionally different entities. Hence, Interglobe Technology Quotient Ltd. also cannot be taken as a comparable. We further find support in recent judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in Philips India Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 340 (Kolkata - Trib.) held that companies engaged Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 13 in diversified engineering services and those owning intangibles are not functionally comparable with a captive software service provider and directed their exclusion, thereby eliminating the adjustment. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 595 (Delhi)/[2025] 472 ITR 22 (Delhi) held that companies engaged in both software products and services, without proper segmental reporting, are not valid comparables. The Delhi Tribunal in Infogain India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 386 (Delhi-Trib.) excluded companies engaged in product development, R&D, or those deriving substantial revenue from software products and extraordinary events. Further, the Bangalore Tribunal in Softbrands India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 231 (Bang-Trib.) excluded product companies and those owning significant intangibles when tested against a captive software development service provider. Applying these precedents to the facts before us, we are of the considered view that Kellton Tech Solutions Ltd., Magnasoft Consulting India Pvt. Ltd., and Interglobe Technology Quotient Ltd. are functionally not comparable to the assessee and must be excluded from the final list of comparables. On such exclusion, the operating margin of the assessee at 15.25% falls within the permissible arm’s length range under section 92C of the Act. Consequently, no transfer pricing adjustment survives. 9. In the result, the addition of Rs. 3,94,09,319/- made on account of transfer pricing adjustment is directed to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 14 10. The appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to Grounds 2 to 9 relating to transfer pricing adjustments. 11. Ground Number 10: Deduction u/s 10AA of the Act 12. With respect to this ground of appeal, it is seen that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer computed the total income at a figure of Rs. 74,09,66,910/- (at Page 13 of the Assessment Order), however, in the computation sheet prepared by the Assessing Officer, the total income of the assessee was computed at a figure of Rs. 75,44,66,910/- and no deduction under Section 10AA of the Act was granted to the assesse in the computation sheet. The case of the assessee is that in the computation sheet, there is an error in which the claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act was denied to the assesse, without any discussion in the assessment order. The assessee had also filed rectification application under Section 154 of the Act, which has still not been disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the claim of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act has been denied, without any discussion on this issue by the Assessing Officer. 13. Considering the submissions made before us as above, the Assessing Officer is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate corrective action. 14. In the result, Ground Number 10 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 15 15. Ground Number 11: Interest u/s 234A of the Act 16. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant facts, there is no occasion for imposition of interest u/s 234A of the Act. 17. Accordingly, the matter is hereby restored to file of the Assessing Officer for carrying out necessary verification and to give appropriate relief in accordance with law. 18. In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. Other Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are consequential in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 20. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-10-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 15/10/2025 TRUE COPY Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A No. 359/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly known as Allscripts (India) LLP) vs. DCIT 16 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद Strengthened preparation & delivery of orders in the ITAT 1) Date of dictation 24/09/2025/09.10.2025 2) Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member & Other Member /09/2025 3) Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. /09/2025 4) Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement /09/2025 5) Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 15/10/2025 6) Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 15/10/2025 7) Date on which the file goes the Head Clerk 8) Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9) Date of Dispatch of the order Printed from counselvise.com "