DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD V. D. E. SHAW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

MA 6/HYD/2026

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA No 6 of 2026) filed by the Revenue seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order (ITA No. 1154/Hyd/2024) concerning D.E. Shaw India Private Limited. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal overlooked a binding precedent from the Delhi High Court regarding international transactions and transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal, however, found that the Revenue's claims did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record as per section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court without a speaking order does not affirm the Delhi High Court's decision nor does it constitute a binding precedent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847461 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Hyderabad
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT, ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S.P.CHIDAMBARAM
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Question of law

Judgement Text

" MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad ŵी रिवश सूद,Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद˟ समƗ | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member MA No 6/Hyd/2026 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1154/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dy. CIT Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Vs. D.E. Shaw India Private Limited, Hyderabad PAN: AAACD7214J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Advocate S.P. Chidambaram राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 20/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/03/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), seeking rectification/recall of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 1154/Hyd/2024. 2. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from a mistake apparent from the record inasmuch as the Printed from counselvise.com MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 2 of 8 Tribunal has failed to consider the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, 96 taxmann.com 237, wherein it has been held that delay in realization of receivables arising from international transactions constitutes a separate international transaction requiring benchmarking and consequential transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income. The Ld. DR further submitted that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has attained finality, as the Special Leave Petition filed against the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, 102 taxmann.com 439. According to the Ld. DR, the dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirms the legal position laid down by the Hon’ble High Court. It was further submitted that non-consideration of such a binding precedent constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. The Ld. DR also contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the following decisions of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal : (a) M/s. Apache Footwear India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No.568/Hyd/2022) (b) M/s. Microchip Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 509/Hyd/2022) and (c) M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd (ITA No.320 & 351/Hyd/2023) 3. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Printed from counselvise.com MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 3 of 8 Vs. CIT (295 ITR 466), the Ld. DR submitted that non- consideration of a binding precedent or a coordinate bench decision amounts to a mistake apparent from the record, which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it was prayed that the order of the Tribunal may be recalled. 4. Per contra, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) strongly opposed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. The Ld. AR submitted that the reliance placed by the Revenue on dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is misconceived. It was submitted that dismissal of SLP in limine without a speaking order does not amount to merger of the High Court’s order with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, nor does it constitute declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution. Inviting our attention to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the SLP has been dismissed in limine without assigning any reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, it cannot be contended that the Tribunal has ignored any binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (305 ITR 227), a mistake apparent from the record arises only when a binding Printed from counselvise.com MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 4 of 8 precedent of the jurisdictional High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was applicable, has not been considered by the Tribunal. In the present case, no such situation arises. With regard to reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra), the Ld. AR submitted that the said decision applies only in a situation where a judgment or decision has been specifically relied upon during the course of hearing but has not been considered by the Tribunal. In the present case, the Revenue had not relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court or any coordinate bench decision during the course of original appellate proceedings. Therefore, the said decision does not come to the aid of the Revenue. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal, and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon. The primary contention of the Revenue is that this Tribunal has failed to consider the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (Supra), which according to the Revenue has attained finality on account of dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard, we have gone Printed from counselvise.com MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 5 of 8 through the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case, which is to the following effect: “1. We are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. 3. Pending application, if any, are disposed of”. 6. On perusal of the above, we find that the SLP has been dismissed in limine without any speaking order. It is a settled position of law that dismissal of SLP in limine without a speaking order does not amount to declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution and does not result in merger of the High Court’s order with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In this regard, we have gone through para no. 23 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala (245 ITR 360), which is to the following effect: “23. A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e., it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared. If the order of dismissal be supported by reasons, then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted because the jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate jurisdiction but merely a discretionary jurisdiction refusing to grant leave to appeal. We have already dealt with the aspect earlier. Still the reasons stated by the Court would attract applicability of article 141. If there is a law declared by the Supreme Court which obviously would be binding on all the Courts and Tribunals in India and certainly the parties thereto, the statement contained in the order other than on points of law would be binding on the parties and the Court or Tribunal, whose order was under challenge on the principle of judicial discipline this Court being the Apex Court of the country, no Court or Tribunal or parties would have the Printed from counselvise.com MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 6 of 8 liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. The order of the Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. The declaration of law will be governed by article 141 but still, the case not being one where leave was granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The Court sometimes leaves the question of law open. Or it sometimes briefly lays down the principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down by the High Court and yet would dismiss the special leave petition. The reasons given are intended for purposes of article 141. This is so done because in the event of merely dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely that an argument could be advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court has to be understood as not to have differed in law with the High Court.” 7. On perusal of the above, we find that as per the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the dismissal of SLP in limine without a speaking order does not amount to declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution and does not result in merger of the High Court’s order with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, the contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal has ignored a binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not sustainable. We further observe that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (Supra), non-consideration of a binding precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court may constitute a mistake apparent from the record. However, in the present case, there is no failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider any binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or Hon’ble Printed from counselvise.com MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 7 of 8 jurisdictional High Court. Further, as regards the reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra), we have gone through the said judgment and find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that non-consideration of a decision which was specifically relied upon during the course of hearing may constitute a mistake apparent from the record. However, in the present case, on a specific query from the Bench, it was fairly admitted that the Revenue had not relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court or any coordinate bench of the Tribunal during the course of original appellate proceedings. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference under section 254(2) of the Act. 9. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 25th March, 2026. Vinodan/sps Printed from counselvise.com MA No 6 of 2026 D E Shaw India Private Limited Page 8 of 8 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Dy. CIT Circle 8(1) Hyderabad 2 DE Shaw India (P) Ltd, Plot No.573, B&C Film Nagar, S.O Shaikpet, Hyderabad 500096 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI Date: 2026.03.26 11:53:53 +05'30' "