BENTLEY SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), NEW DELHI

MA 148/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Bentley Systems India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting certain aspects of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's earlier decision regarding the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred in restoring issues related to working capital adjustments and the computation of margins of certain comparables. Additionally, the appellant contested the imputed interest on outstanding receivables. The Tribunal acknowledged the need to correct the oversight regarding the working capital adjustments but upheld the decision on the imputed interest, stating that the factual aspects need verification and thus remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34380 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGESHWAR RAO; PARTH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Working capital adjustments
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"M.A.No.148/Del/2022 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I-1 [FRIDAY]” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.148/Del/2022 [In ITA No.4558/Del/2018] [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Bentley Systems India Pvt.Ltd., 203, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-III New Delhi-110020 PAN-AABCB5645E vs DCIT Circle-4(2) New Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv. & Shri Parth, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned Misc. Application dated 16.06.2022 under s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) filed by the assessee arises from the appellate order passed by the Tribunal under s. 254(1) of the Act dated 19.01.2022 in ITA No.4558/Del/2018 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Perused the M.A. and other material referred in the course of hearing, it is the contention of the assessee that the Tribunal has committed apparent mistake in restoring the issue of working capital adjustments alongwith other directions as per para 14 of the order. It is the case of the assessee that working capital adjustment has already been granted by the DRP which was not remained uncomplied with by the AO while framing the final assessment order. 3. In the light of the submissions made para No. 14 of the appellate order is modified as under:- M.A.No.148/Del/2022 Page | 2 11. “………At this stage, we must observe, the assessee has raised certain issues regarding error in computation of margin of certain comparables as well as not granting adjustment in the working capital and risk profile while computing margin of the comparables. Since, we have excluded one of the comparables selected by the TPO, i.e., Infobeans Technologies Ltd. and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the comparability of some other comparables in all fairness, the issues relating to adjustment in working capital and risk profile as well as error in computation of margin is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining afresh in accordance with law and keeping in mind the DRP directions as claimed after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 4. Para 14 of the appellate order thus stands modified and substituted. 5. We now advert to the second objection on account of adjustment of INR 1,43,30,115/- on account of interest imputed on outstanding receivables. It is the contention of the assessee that the decision rendered as per para 23 of the appellate order wherein the issue of interest on outstanding receivables remanded back to the AO for proper examination is premised on incorrect process of reasoning resulting in inadvertent error. The assessee thus seeks to recall of the earlier order for fresh examination. 6. On perusal of the para 23 of the appellate order, we are unable to observe any mistake apparent from record per se. On conspectus of factual matrix and having regard to the legal position canvassed, it was observed by the Tribunal that the factual aspects need to be verified to determine the issue and consequently, restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to provide opportunity to the assessee. As per the impugned order passed under s. 254(1) of the Act, the assessee is thus entitled in law to submit all factual and legal position before the AO. 7. The view expressed by the Tribunal cannot be regarded as any ‘mistake apparent from the record’. We thus decline to entertain the plea of the assessee in this regard. M.A.No.148/Del/2022 Page | 3 8. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "