DTDC EXPRESS LIMITED ,BANGALORE V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITTPA 1552/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. DTDC Express Ltd., which appealed against the Final Assessment Order (FAO) for the Assessment Year 2020-21, which included various disallowances and adjustments. The primary issues revolved around the Transfer Pricing Officer's (TPO) adjustment of Rs.11,21,000 for corporate guarantee fees and the disallowance of leasehold improvements amounting to Rs.5,81,87,239. The assessee contested that the guarantee fees should be lower and that the leasehold improvements were revenue expenditures, not capital. The Tribunal upheld the TPO's decision on the guarantee fees but restored the leasehold improvement issue to the AO for further examination. Other tax credit issues raised by the assessee were also restored to the AO for reconsideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470991 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Trianz Holdings P Limited Vs ACIT, Steer Engineering P Ltd Vs DCIT, United Spirits Ltd Vs DCIT, Joy Alukkas (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., M/s. Expat Engineering India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Velankani Information Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT Circle-7(1)(2) Bangalore
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K. P. SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Revenue expenditure; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Retrospective amendment; Business expenditure; Depreciation; Capital expenditure; TDS; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 201; 32; 205; 13; 92CA; 37; 201(1); 37(1); 92B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. DTDC Express Ltd., No.3, DTDC House, Victoria Road, Bangalore – 560 047. PAN : AAAC 8017 H Vs. DCIT, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. P. Srinivas, CA. Revenue by : Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 28.06.2024, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a private limited company. It is engaged in the business of express services such as courier, cargo, logistics, freight forwarding and related services, both within and outside India. For the Assessment Year 2020-21, the return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs.20,71,34,690/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 15 referred the case to the TPO to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction undertaken by the assessee with its Associate Enterprise (AE). The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed an Order under section 92CA(3) of the Act, on 03.03.2023 by proposing a corporate guarantee fees to be charged by the tax payer amounting to Rs.11,21,000/- (being 1% of the amount for which the assessee stood as a guarantor). The AO passed Draft Assessment Order (DAO) under section 144(C)(1) of the Act on 29.09.2023, incorporating the aforesaid TP adjustment under section 92CA of the Act and also proposed the three corporate tax adjustments. The corporate tax additions / disallowance proposed by the AO in the DAO are as under: a) Disallowance of Education cess Rs.13,99,900/- based on assessee's own admission b) Disallowance of leasehold improvement expenses Rs.5,81,87,239/- and allowed depreciation at 10% thereon Rs.58,18,724/- c) Disallowance of interest on delayed remittance of TDS Rs.6,26,544/- 3. Aggrieved by the DAO, assessee filed objections before the DRP. The DRP, vide its directions dated 28.05.2024, dismissed the application filed by the assessee. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the AO passed the impugned FAO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act, on 28.06.2024. In the FAO, the total income assessed was to the tune of Rs.26,26,50,650/- as against the return of income of Rs.20,71,34,690/-. 4. Aggrieved by the FAO, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: 1. The Learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP has grievously erred in holding that guarantee fees at 1% amounting to Rs.11,21,000/. should have been charged on corporate guarantee facility extended to its Associated Enterprise. IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 15 2. Without prejudice to Ground 1, even if Corporate guarantee fees is applicable, it cannot exceed 0.5% of the guarantee amount as held in the several judicial precedents. The Learned TPO and Hon'ble DRP has grievously erred in rejecting this plea of your appellant. 3. The Learned AO and Hon'ble DRP has grievously erred in disallowing leasehold improvements claimed as revenue expenditure to the extent of Rs.5,81,87,239/-. 4. The AO and Hon'ble DRP has grievously erred in disregarding the alternate plea of the Petitioner for claim of depreciation at 33.33% for leasehold improvements and instead has allowed only 10% depreciation. 5. The AO has grievously erred in disallowing Rs.6,26,544/-being interest paid on belated remittance of TDS. 6. The Learned AO has grievously erred in not allowing credit for TDS aggregating to Rs.9,35,42,242/- in the Computation Sheet attached to the Assessment order without mentioning any reasons for the same. 7. The Learned AO has grievously erred in not allowing credit for TCS aggregating to Rs.1,17,391/- in the Computation Sheet attached to the Assessment order without mentioning any reasons for the same. 8. The Learned AO has grievously erred in not allowing credit for Advance tax paid aggregating to Rs.51,21,335/- in the Computation Sheet attached to the Assessment order without mentioning any reasons for the same. 9. The Learned AO has grievously erred in not allowing credit for Dividend Distribution Tax aggregating to Rs.4,70,99,436/. in the Computation Sheet attached to the Assessment order without mentioning any reasons for the same. 10. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order u/s 143(3) passed by AO including matters as sustained by the Hon’ble DRP be quashed to the extent appealed against. IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 15 5. We shall adjudicate the above grounds as under: 6. Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.11,21,000/- (Grounds 1 and 2) 6.1 Brief facts in relation to the above grounds are as follows: 6.2 Assessee had given a corporate guarantee to Axis Bank of USD 1.5 million equivalent to Rs.11.21 Crores for a loan taken by one of its group entities viz., DTDC Global Express Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The assessee did not charge any guarantee commission. Assessee, before the TPO, submitted that it is not an international transaction. It was submitted that as per the RBI Regulation and Foreign Exchange Management Act, corporate guarantee can be given by companies to its joint ventures or wholly owned subsidiaries only and it cannot be given to unrelated parties, hence, it was contended that no comparable uncontrolled Indian data is available for this transaction. The TPO however rejected the assessee’s contentions that it is not an international transaction by placing reliance on the amendment / insertion of explanation to section 92B of the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002. The TPO, by relying on the safe harbor Rule (Rule 10TC and Rule 10TD of the Income Tax Rules) arrived at 1% per annum on the amount guaranteed as a TP adjustment. The relevant observation of the TPO in arriving at 1% and the TP adjustment made amounting to Rs.11,21,000/- reads as follows: 6. Determination of ALP on fee receivable on corporate guarantee provided: The compensation or fee receivable by the taxpayer from its AE for the corporate guarantee provided is benchmarked using other method as the most appropriate method. IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 15 6.2 In the other method the provision of the safe harbor as detailed below is applied for determining the ALP of the compensation or fee receivable by the taxpayer for providing corporate guarantee to its AE. 6.3 As per the provision of the Rule 10TC &_10TD of the Income Tax Rules when the taxpayer has provided corporate guarantee to its AE where the amount guaranteed does not exceed Rs. 100 Crore the commission or fee has to be at the rate not less than 1% per annum on the amount guaranteed. 6.4 In view of the above the ALP of the compensation of the fee receivable by the taxpayer for providing corporate guarantee to its AE is determined at 1% per annum on the amount guaranteed i.e. Rs.11,21,000/- (©1% of the corporate guarantee given to Axis Bank of USD 15 lakh equivalent to INR 1121 lakhs) Rate of corporate guarantee fee to be paid (ALP Rate) 1% Arm's Length corporate guarantee fee Rs.11,21,000/- Corporate guarantee fees charged by the taxpayer Nil Shortfall being adjustment Rs.11,21,000/- 6.3 Aggrieved, assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the TPO/DRP. Alternatively, it was contended that appropriate arm’s length guarantee commission would be 0.5% of the amount of loan for which the assessee had stood as a guarantor instead of 1% determined by TPO/DRP. In this context, the learned AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: a) Trianz Holdings P Limited Vs ACIT (141 taxmann.com 106) b) Steer Engineering P Ltd Vs DCIT (140 taxmann.com 518) c) United Spirits Ltd Vs DCIT (139 taxmann.com 507) IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 15 6.4 The learned DR relied on the Orders of the TPO and the DRP. 6.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In view of the clear provisions of section 92B of the Act, we reject the contentions of the assessee that it is not an international transaction. Now coming to the alternative submission of the assessee that the corporate guarantee should be calculated at 0.5% instead of 1% on the guarantee stood by the assessee for availing loan for its group company, we are of the view that the same depends on the nature of the guarantee, the risk profile of the borrower and other purposes. When the learned AR was asked whether the loan is closed by the borrower or whether it is still outstanding, there was no details forthcoming. The TPO has arrived at 1% as guarantee commission by placing reliance on the safe harbour Rules. The necessity of standing as a guarantor for the loan availed by the group concern in Singapore has not been justified by placing any material on record. The DRP has justified the charging of guarantee commission at 1% on the facts of instant case and also relied on ITAT Order where guarantee commission was pegged at % (refer paras 2.1 to 2.6 of the direction of the DRP). The assessee in not producing any material on record to show on facts of the instant case that a lesser guarantee commission of 0.5% needs to be charged instead of 1% charged by the TPO/DRP. Therefore, on the facts of the instant case, we confirm the TP adjustment made to the tune of Rs.11,21,000/-. 6.6 Hence, grounds 1 and 2 are rejected. 7. Disallowance of Leasehold Improvements of Rs.5,81,87,239/- (Grounds 3 and 4) 7.1 Brief facts in relation to the above grounds are as follows: IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 15 7.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee company had claimed leasehold expenses amounting to Rs.8,87,58,488/- as revenue expenditure. Assessee was directed to explain the deductibility of the said leasehold improvement expenses. In response to the show cause notice, assessee filed its submissions, wherein the breakup of the details of the lease hold expenses incurred were furnished and also relied on plethora of case laws to substantiate that expenses incurred are in the revenue field. On perusal of the assessee’s submissions, the AO accepted that leasehold expenditure to the extent of Rs.3,05,71,249/- is an allowable expenditure and eligible for deduction since assessee had amortized the expenditure incurred over a period of 3 years commencing from assessment year 2018-19 onwards (i.e. 1/3rd of the expenditure which was amortized). As regards the remaining leasehold expenditure to the tune of Rs.5,81,87,239/-, AO disallowed the same as a capital expenditure and granted depreciation @10%. The primary reason for AO to hold that the expenditure of Rs.5,81,87,239/- is not allowed as a deduction was that assessee had incurred the said expenditure on the leasehold property and by virtue of explanation (1) to section 32 of the Act, the improvement of the building not owned by the assessee shall be granted eligible depreciation. The AO further held that in spite of request to furnish the lease agreements, assessee had failed to produce the same and observed that, in light of section 269UA(f) of the Act, if the lease period exceeded 12 years, the leased premises is considered to be transferred to the lessee. 7.3 Aggrieved by the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.5,81,87,239/-, assessee raised the objection before the DRP. The DRP however, rejected the objections raised by the assessee. The relevant findings of the DRP reads as follows: 2.2.1 Having considered the submissions, the Panel is of the view that as the question regarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee for refurbishing the building taken on lease is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that, as per explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his occupation, This means that by refurbishing, decorating or by doing interior work in the building an enduring IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 15 benefit was derived by the assessee for the period of occupation and, therefore, is a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure, as correctly held by the AO.” 7.4 Aggrieved by the directions of the DRP, assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. In the paper book filed by the assessee it had enclosed details of the lease hold improvements as per Form 3CD. The location-wise additions to the lease hold improvements, sample invoices for improvement done in lease hold premises, etc. The assessee has also filed petition under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963) for admission of additional evidence. The additional evidences that are sought to be admitted are sample lease agreements entered between the assessee and the various lessors. 7.5 The learned AR submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO had not specifically called for the lease agreement copies to be furnished. The assessee was under mistaken impression in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO dated 23.8.2023 that only document in support of lease hold improvements made during the year including any agreement, if any with the said vendors / contractors alone needs to be furnished. Only on receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee became aware that AO had called for the lease agreement entered by the assessee (lessee) with the lessors. It was submitted that lease agreements are for a period of less than 12 years and in some cases, it is only up to 3 years. It was submitted that since the AO had specifically stated in the draft assessment order in cases where lease period exceeding 12 years, the lease premises is considered to be transferred to the lessee, the lease agreement which are submitted before the Tribunal are vital piece of evidence for the adjudication of the issue and same may be taken on record in the interest of substantial justice and equity. Further, it was contended by the learned AR that lease hold improvements incurred by the assessee company is towards rented premises in 266 locations spread over various places in the country. It was submitted that expenses were incurred towards interior work IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 9 of 15 (electrical and carpentry work) done in the rented premises and hence was treated as a revenue expenditure. It was submitted that the benefit earned by the assessee company out of this expenditure is to make its business smooth and efficient and is directly related to the Revenue field. 7.6 The learned DR strongly supported the orders of the AO and the DRP. 7.7 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the details of the expenditure incurred on lease hold premises, we find that it is mainly on carpentry and electrical work. The primary reason for the AO to disallow the expenditure was that assessee would be entitled to depreciation allowance on the lease hold premises by virtue of explanation (1) to section 32 of the Act. It is not clear from the assessment order nor the DRP’s direction that each item of the expenses have been examined to come to the conclusion whether it is expenditure incurred on the revenue field or capital field. Only capital expenditure incurred on the lease hold premises alone would be entitled to depreciation allowance as per explanation (1) to section 32 of the Act. On the contrary, if the expenditure is incurred on the revenue field, the same can be allowed as a deduction in the year in which it is incurred. In this context, we rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Joy Alukkas (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 437. 7.8 Moreover, assessee has filed additional evidence by placing sample lease agreements entered by the assessee (lessee) with the lessor. The AO in the draft assessment order had given one more reason to disallow the expenditure by referring to section 269UA(f) of the Act by stating that lease premises is considered to be transferred to the lessee, if the lease period exceeded 12 years. The sample lease agreements that are furnished as additional evidence are for lease periods not exceeding 3 to 5 years. We feel the additional evidences that are now produced IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 10 of 15 before the Tribunal requires to be admitted and is taken on record for substantial justice and equity. Since there has been no proper examination of the issue, whether the expenditure incurred is on the revenue front or on the capital front and also for the reason there is admission of additional evidence, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of AO. The AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before fresh decision is taken on the issue. 7.9 In the result, ground Nos.3 & 4 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Disallowance of interest on belated payment of TDS (Ground No.5): 8.1 Brief facts in relation to the above ground are as follows: 8.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that interest aggregating to Rs.6,26,544/- was paid by the assessee u/s 201(1A)/206C(7) of the Act. The same was sought to be disallowed by the AO. The assessee in response to the show cause notice submitted that TDS is only compensatory in nature and is an allowable deduction under section 37 of the Act. The AO however, rejected the contentions raised by the assessee and disallowed the interest aggregating to Rs.6,26,544/-. The AO placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Couirt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. reported in (1999) 239 ITR 435 (Mad.) and the order of Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Expat Engineering India Ltd. in ITA No.503/Bang/2022. 8.3 The DRP confirmed the view taken by the AO. 8.4 The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO and DRP. IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 11 of 15 8.5 The learned DR was duly heard. 8.6 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in the case of Velankani Information Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT Circle-7(1)(2) Bangalore reported in (2018) 97 taxmann.com 599 (Bang Trib.) by following the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Chennai in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. had confirmed the disallowance of interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act is same in the nature of tax and cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act. It was further held by the Tribunal that interest paid u/s 201(1A) of the Act would not assume the character of business expenditure for deduction u/s 37 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows: “21. As far as delay in remittance of tax deducted at source u/s. 201(1A) of the Act is concerned, we find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has taken a view that interest paid u/s. 201(1A) is also in the nature of tax and notwithstanding the fact that it is not the tax liability of the assessee, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction. The following were the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court:- \"14. As already noticed the payment of interest takes colour from the nature of the levy with reference to which such interest is paid and the tax required to be but not paid in time, which rendered the assessee liable for payment of interest was in the nature of a direct tax and similar to the income-tax payable under ITA Nos.218 & 283/Bang/2017 the Income-tax Act. The interest paid under Section 201(1A) of the Act, therefore, would not assume the character of business expenditure and cannot be regarded as a compensatory payment as contended by learned counsel for the assessee. 15. Counsel for the assessee in support of his submission that the interest paid by the assessee was merely compensatory in character besides relying on the case of Makalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. also relied on the decision of the apex court in the cases of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 684 ; Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. v. CIT [19971 225 ITR 383 and CIT v. Ahmedabad Cotton Manufacturing Co. IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 15 Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 163. In all these cases, the court was concerned with an indirect tax payable by the assessee in the course of its business and admissible as business expenditure. Further liability for interest which had been incurred by the assessee therein was regarded as compensatory in nature and allowable as business expenditure. 16. The ratio of those cases is not applicable here. Income-tax is not allowable as business expenditure. The amount deducted as tax is not an item of expenditure. The amount not deducted and remitted has the character of tax and has to be remitted to the State and cannot be utilised by the assessee for its own business. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce and Industries [1998] 230 ITR 733, rejected the argument advanced by the assessee that retention of money payable to the State as tax or income-tax would augment the capital of the assessee and the expenditure incurred, namely, interest paid for the period of such retention would assume character of business expenditure. The court held that an assessee could not possibly claim that it was borrowing from the State, the amounts payable by it as income- tax, and utilising the same as capital in its business, to contend that the interest paid for the period of delay in payment of tax amounted to a business expenditure. (emphasis supplied) 22. The decision cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal on the issue is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Though the decision of the Tribunal is later in point of ITA Nos.218 & 283/Bang/2017 time, judicial discipline demands that the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is to be followed. It is also worthwhile to mention that the Kolkata Bench of Tribunal in the case of Narayani Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee, did not consider or did not have an occasion to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investment Ltd. (supra). In these circumstances, we follow the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and uphold the order of the CIT(A) insofar as it relates to disallowance of interest on delayed remittance of tax deducted at source u/s. 201(1A) of the Act.” 8.7 The decision relied on by the ld. A.R. in the case of CIT Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2009) 183 Taxman 186 is distinguishable on fact. The Hon’ble High Court had decided the issue in favour of the revenue by holding that assessee is liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 15 non-deduction of tax under section 201(1) of the Act. The said judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court does not deal with the issue whether interest paid under section 201(1A) of the Act can be allowed as a deduction under section 37 of the Act or not. For aforesaid reasoning and the order of the Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in the case of Velankani Information Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT Circle-7(1)(2) Bangalore (supra), we reject the contentions of assessee. 8.8 Therefore, ground 5 is dismissed. 9. Disallowance of tax credit for TDS aggregating to Rs.9,35,42,242/- (Ground No.6): 9.1 By raising above ground, the assessee contends that TDS credits aggregating to Rs.9,35,42,242/- has not been granted in the final assessment order without mentioning any reason for the same. The issue raised in ground 6 is restored to the file of AO. The AO is directed to consider the claim of the assessee and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. It is ordered accordingly. 9.2 Therefore, ground 6 is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Disallowance of tax credit for TCS aggregating to Rs.1,17,391/- (Ground No.7): 10.1 By raising above ground, the assessee contends that TCS credits aggregating to Rs.1,17,391/- has not been granted in the final assessment order without mentioning any reason for the same. The issue raised in ground 7 is restored to the file of AO. The AO is directed to consider the claim of the assessee and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. It is ordered accordingly. IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 14 of 15 10.2 Hence, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Disallowance of tax credit for advance tax aggregating to Rs.51,21,335/- (Ground No.8): 11.1 By raising above ground, the assessee contends that tax credit for advance tax aggregating to Rs.51,21,335/- has not been granted in the final assessment order. The issue raised in ground 8 is restored to the file of AO. The AO is directed to consider the claim of the assessee and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. It is ordered accordingly. 11.2 Therefore, ground 8 is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Disallowance of tax credit for Dividend Distribution Tax aggregating to Rs.4,70,99,436/- (Ground No.9): 12.1 By raising above ground, the assessee contends that tax credit for dividend distribution tax aggregating to Rs.4,70,99,436/- has not been granted in the final assessment order. The issue raised in ground 9 is restored to the file of AO. The AO is directed to consider the claim of the assessee and take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. It is ordered accordingly. 12.2 Hence, ground 9 is allowed for statistical purposes. IT(TP)A No.1552/Bang/2024 Page 15 of 15 13 In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated : 08.10.2024. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "