NOMURA SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,MUMBAI V. DY DIT-15(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7920/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Nomura Services India Private Limited appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the disallowance of INR 28,57,553 for delayed deposit of employees' Provident Fund contributions. The Tribunal noted that the adjustment was initially made under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was not subject to independent examination during the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The Tribunal referenced several precedents to conclude that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) could not be challenged in the appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3), leading to the dismissal of the appeal as non-maintainable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848151 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDARI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDIK NIMAL; HINAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Rectification of order; Competent authority; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3); 154; 115JB

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.7920/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Nomura Services India Private Limited, 10th Floor, Winchester, Off High Street, Powai Business District, Mumbai-400076. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax – 15(1)(2), Mumbai (Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre), Aayakar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra – 400020. PAN NO. AABCL 0053 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hardik Nimal CA, & Ms. Hinal Shah, CA. Department by : Shri Swapnil Choudari (SR. DR). Date of Hearing : 25/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/03/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order, dated 19.09.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Printed from counselvise.com (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year (in short A.Y) 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 25.11.2022 Rs.245,24,01,040/-. T processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 26.07.2023, wherein adjustment of Rs.28,57,553/ Fund(PF) not paid on or before the due date prescribed under the relevant Act and assessed the total income 2.1. The return of income filed by the assessee was for scrutiny on various grounds international transaction income, refund claim, taxation of relief, imports, amount allowable as Assessing Officer after consider make any addition u/s 143(3) of the Act, and assessed 143(3) of the Act at income of determined in processing u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal (A)against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 11.03.2 learned CIT(A), while adjudicating the issues raised before him, Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. essment Year (in short A.Y) 2022-23. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return on 25.11.2022 declaring total . The return of income filed by the assessee was 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 26.07.2023, wherein the Central Processing Centre (CPC 28,57,553/- for employees contribution to Provident Fund(PF) not paid on or before the due date prescribed under the and assessed the total income at Rs.2,79,95,32,530/ The return of income filed by the assessee was for scrutiny on various grounds inter-alia arm’s length price of national transaction, expenses incurred for earning claim, ICDS complaints and adjustment, double imports, deprivation claim and claim on any other allowable as deduction in Schedule – fficer after considering submission of the assessee did not make any addition u/s 143(3) of the Act, and assessed at income of Rs.279,95,32,530/ determined in processing u/s 143(1) of the Act. the assessee filed appeal before the the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 11.03.2 learned CIT(A), while adjudicating the issues raised before him, Nomura Services India Private Limited 2 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring total income of he return of income filed by the assessee was (in short Act) on Centre (CPC) made for employees contribution to Provident Fund(PF) not paid on or before the due date prescribed under the Rs.2,79,95,32,530/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was later on selected arm’s length price of incurred for earning exempted and adjustment, double deprivation claim and claim on any other BP. The learned of the assessee did not make any addition u/s 143(3) of the Act, and assessed income u/s Rs.279,95,32,530/- i.e. the income before the learned CIT the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 11.03.2025. The learned CIT(A), while adjudicating the issues raised before him, Printed from counselvise.com upheld the disallowance of of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution to PF on the ground that the contribution had been deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant statute, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra). The relevant “5.2. In the ground no leave encashment payments u/s 438 amounting to RS.3,57, explained that there was a compensating error between current year and prior year payments although the net effect was nil 5.3. It is clear from the perusal of the Tax Audit Report (TAR) and the ITR that the disallowance is due to erroneous reporting of relevant amounts under wrong columns. This issue warrants verification of the facts as per the supporting documents, hence, t due to inadvertent misreporting, the deduction shall be allowed to the appellant 5.4. In the ground no. 4, VAT/GST refund to the tune of Rs of GST was not routed through the Profit & Loss account but directly through Balance Sheet accounts. 5.5. Since no GST expense was debited, its refund cannot be treated as taxable income. Judicial precedents relied u cases, support the appellant's stand. Therefore, after verification of the amount claimed by the appellant, the addition of the amount under question shall be deleted. Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. upheld the disallowance of ₹28,57,553/- made under of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution to PF on the ground that the contribution had been deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant statute, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced In the ground no. 3, the appellant has contended against the disallowance of payments u/s 438 amounting to RS.3,57,24 explained that there was a compensating error due to interchange of figures between current year and prior year payments u/s 43B. The appellant claims that although the net effect was nil, the CPC still made the disallowance. clear from the perusal of the Tax Audit Report (TAR) and the ITR that the disallowance is due to erroneous reporting of relevant amounts under wrong columns. This issue warrants verification of the facts as per the supporting documents, hence, the AO is directed to verify the same. If the issue arose merely due to inadvertent misreporting, the deduction shall be allowed to the appellant In the ground no. 4, the appellant has contended against the addition of VAT/GST refund to the tune of Rs.47,56,63,367/-, The appellant argued that refund of GST was not routed through the Profit & Loss account but directly through Balance Sheet accounts. Since no GST expense was debited, its refund cannot be treated as taxable income. Judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant, including Nomura group cases, support the appellant's stand. Therefore, after verification of the amount claimed by the appellant, the addition of the amount under question shall be Nomura Services India Private Limited 3 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees’ contribution to PF on the ground that the contribution had been deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant statute, relying upon the judgment of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT finding of ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under: the appellant has contended against the disallowance of 24,627/- The appellant due to interchange of figures u/s 43B. The appellant claims that the CPC still made the disallowance. clear from the perusal of the Tax Audit Report (TAR) and the ITR that the disallowance is due to erroneous reporting of relevant amounts under wrong columns. This issue warrants verification of the facts as per the supporting irected to verify the same. If the issue arose merely due to inadvertent misreporting, the deduction shall be allowed to the appellant. the appellant has contended against the addition of , The appellant argued that refund of GST was not routed through the Profit & Loss account but directly through Since no GST expense was debited, its refund cannot be treated as taxable pon by the appellant, including Nomura group cases, support the appellant's stand. Therefore, after verification of the amount claimed by the appellant, the addition of the amount under question shall be Printed from counselvise.com In view of the above discussion, the ground purposes. 5.6. As per the ground no. 5, the appellant has pleaded against the disallowance of employees' PF contributions of Rs. that the appellant made delayed payme as the TAR shows that there was a delay of one day in payment as per the relevant statue. The appellant has relied on the EPFO circular which made clarification regarding the delays caused in PF/ESI payments du 5.7. However, the section 36(1) (va) mandates that the PF/ESI contributions received by the employer from its employees must be account by the 'due date Court in the case of to 2833 of 2018 and 159 of 2019) marked the difference between nature and character of assessee contribution and amou way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee/employer 5.8. The Apex Court has clearly stat amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part assessee/employer's income, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee/employer employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. 5.9. In view of the above disc 36(1)(va) is upheld and the ground no. 5 is dismissed 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced as under: Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. ew of the above discussion, the grounds no. 1 to 4 are allowed for statistical As per the ground no. 5, the appellant has pleaded against the disallowance of loyees' PF contributions of Rs.28,57,553/- u/s 36(1)(va) that the appellant made delayed payments of the PF contributions of its employees, as the TAR shows that there was a delay of one day in payment as per the relevant statue. The appellant has relied on the EPFO circular which made clarification regarding the delays caused in PF/ESI payments due to AADHAR related issues. However, the section 36(1) (va) mandates that the PF/ESI contributions received by the employer from its employees must be ‘credited’ due date' prescribed under the relevant law The Hon'ble Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT (Civil Appeal no. 2830 to 2833 of 2018 and 159 of 2019) vide order dated 12.10.2022, has clearly marked the difference between nature and character of assessee contribution and amounts retained by assessee from out of employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee/employer The Apex Court has clearly stated that Section 438 could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part assessee/employer's income, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee/employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. In view of the above discussion, the disallowance of Rs. 36(1)(va) is upheld and the ground no. 5 is dismissed.” the assessee is before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced as under: Nomura Services India Private Limited 4 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 s no. 1 to 4 are allowed for statistical As per the ground no. 5, the appellant has pleaded against the disallowance of u/s 36(1)(va). It is a matter of fact nts of the PF contributions of its employees, as the TAR shows that there was a delay of one day in payment as per the relevant statue. The appellant has relied on the EPFO circular which made clarification e to AADHAR related issues. However, the section 36(1) (va) mandates that the PF/ESI contributions credited’ to the employee's ' prescribed under the relevant law The Hon'ble Supreme Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT (Civil Appeal no. 2830 vide order dated 12.10.2022, has clearly marked the difference between nature and character of assessee-employer's nts retained by assessee from out of employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee/employer. ed that Section 438 could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part assessee/employer's income, from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. ussion, the disallowance of Rs.28.57.553/-u/s the assessee is before the Tribunal by way of raising Printed from counselvise.com “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income confirming the action of the Assessing Unit, Income or \"AO) of computing the total income at INR 2,45,52,58,597 as against total income of INR 2,45,24,01,044 declared by the Appellant in its return of income. 2. On the facts and in the Commissioner of Income appreciating that the additions made under section 143(1) of the Act are invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) / AO erred in making a disallowance amounting to INR 28,57,553 under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') on account of delay in the payment of the employee's contribution to Provident Fund (PF). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) /AO erred in levying the interest amounting to INR 28,169 under Section 234C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amen the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary at either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal members to decide these a 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to 11 of the Paper Book reflects the payment of to PF on 16.06.2021 page 6 of the intimation issued under section 143(1) CPC made an adjustment of Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)] erred in action of the Assessing Unit, Income-tax Department (Assessing Officer or \"AO) of computing the total income at INR 2,45,52,58,597 as against total income of INR 2,45,24,01,044 declared by the Appellant in its return of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)] erred in not appreciating that the additions made under section 143(1) of the Act are invalid, bad in law and liable to be quashed. ts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) / AO erred in making a disallowance amounting to INR 28,57,553 under section 36(1)(va) of the tax Act, 1961 (the Act') on account of delay in the payment of the employee's dent Fund (PF). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) /AO erred in levying the interest amounting to INR 28,169 under Section 234C of the Act. 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 at either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal members to decide these according to the law.” Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to 11 of the Paper Book, being the Tax Audit Report (TAR) reflects the payment of ₹28,57,553/- towards employees’ contribution 16.06.2021. He further referred to sub-row (k) of row 6 at page 6 of the intimation issued under section 143(1) CPC made an adjustment of ₹28,57,553/- on account of delayed Nomura Services India Private Limited 5 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)] erred in tax Department (Assessing Officer or \"AO) of computing the total income at INR 2,45,52,58,597 as against total income of INR 2,45,24,01,044 declared by the Appellant in its return of income. circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. tax National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)] erred in not appreciating that the additions made under section 143(1) of the Act are invalid, bad ts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) / AO erred in making a disallowance amounting to INR 28,57,553 under section 36(1)(va) of the tax Act, 1961 (the Act') on account of delay in the payment of the employee's 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) /AO erred in levying the interest amounting to INR 28,169 d, 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 at either at or before the appeal hearing so as to ccording to the law.” Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee referred to page Tax Audit Report (TAR), which towards employees’ contribution row (k) of row 6 at page 6 of the intimation issued under section 143(1), wherein the on account of delayed Printed from counselvise.com deposit of employees’ PF contribution as required under 36(1)(va) of the Act. 4.1 From the record, it is evident that the return under section 143(1) made the aforesaid adjustment and determined the total income at ₹2,79,95,32,530/- ₹2,45,24,01,040/-. Thus, the disallowance in question was the intimation issued under section 143(1) assessment framed under scrutiny proceedings, the examine or adjudicate this issue 4.2 The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay of one day in depositing the PF contribution occurred due to a glitch in the EPFO portal page 44 of the Paper Book temporarily unable to service the request due to maintenance downtime or capacity issues. 4.3 It was further submitted that the assessee was required to generate an ECR challan the month of May 2021, but due to the portal malfunction the same could not be generated within time. The assessee accordingly raised a complaint on 15.06.2021 Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. deposit of employees’ PF contribution as required under From the record, it is evident that the CPC, while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act vide order dated made the aforesaid adjustment and determined the total income at as against the returned income of . Thus, the disallowance in question was the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act and not in the assessment framed under section 143(3). During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not independently examine or adjudicate this issue. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay of in depositing the PF contribution occurred due to a glitch in the EPFO portal. In support of this contention, he referred to page 44 of the Paper Book, showing that the EPFO server was temporarily unable to service the request due to maintenance downtime or capacity issues. It was further submitted that the assessee was required to ECR challan in respect of non-Aadhaar seeded cases the month of May 2021, but due to the portal malfunction the same could not be generated within time. The assessee accordingly raised a 15.06.2021 with the Regional Provident Fund Office, Nomura Services India Private Limited 6 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 deposit of employees’ PF contribution as required under section CPC, while processing the of the Act vide order dated 26.07.2023, made the aforesaid adjustment and determined the total income at as against the returned income of . Thus, the disallowance in question was made in of the Act and not in the . During the course of Assessing Officer did not independently The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay of in depositing the PF contribution occurred due to a technical his contention, he referred to , showing that the EPFO server was temporarily unable to service the request due to maintenance It was further submitted that the assessee was required to Aadhaar seeded cases for the month of May 2021, but due to the portal malfunction the same could not be generated within time. The assessee accordingly raised a with the Regional Provident Fund Office, Printed from counselvise.com Thane, a copy of which placed on page 45. T raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: “From: Mendon, Harish (HR/IN) Sent: 15 June 2021 23:18 To: ‘[e-mail]’ Cc: '[e-mail]’ Subject: PF Portal Not Dear Sir/Madam, We, M/s Nomura Services India Private Limited establishment, registered under Establishment Code No. TH/THA/99368 with RPFC-Thane. We wish to bring to your notice, that we are facing a into the Employer EPFO portal. As a result, we are unable to proceed with the ECR Challan generation and remittance for the month of May, 2021 for the non seeded cases. Annexed attached is a snapshot of the error on t Today, 15th June 2021, is the last day for remittance of PF dues for the month of May 2021. We request you to waive off the interest and damages for the delay in remittance of PF dues, on account of the above issue. Request you to kindly consider the issue and resolve the same at the earliest. We await your positive response and action in the matter. Thanking You, Yours faithfully. Harish Mendon Human Resources 4.4 The learned counsel also referred to the notification issued by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) Aadhaar seeding mandatory for filing ECR with effect from 01.06.2021, which allegedly caused operational difficulties during Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. opy of which placed on page 45. The relevant complaint raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: : Mendon, Harish (HR/IN) : 15 June 2021 23:18 : ‘[e-mail]’ : '[e-mail]’ : PF Portal Not working- Est. Code-TH/THA/99368 M/s Nomura Services India Private Limited, is an Un establishment, registered under Establishment Code No. TH/THA/99368 with We wish to bring to your notice, that we are facing a consistent error while logging into the Employer EPFO portal. As a result, we are unable to proceed with the ECR Challan generation and remittance for the month of May, 2021 for the non Annexed attached is a snapshot of the error on the EPFO Employer link Today, 15th June 2021, is the last day for remittance of PF dues for the month of May 2021. We request you to waive off the interest and damages for the delay in remittance of PF dues, on account of the above issue. dly consider the issue and resolve the same at the earliest. We await your positive response and action in the matter. The learned counsel also referred to the notification issued by Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) Aadhaar seeding mandatory for filing ECR with effect from , which allegedly caused operational difficulties during Nomura Services India Private Limited 7 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 he relevant complaint , is an Un-exempted establishment, registered under Establishment Code No. TH/THA/99368 with consistent error while logging into the Employer EPFO portal. As a result, we are unable to proceed with the ECR Challan generation and remittance for the month of May, 2021 for the non-Aadhaar he EPFO Employer link Today, 15th June 2021, is the last day for remittance of PF dues for the month of May 2021. We request you to waive off the interest and damages for the delay in dly consider the issue and resolve the same at the earliest. We The learned counsel also referred to the notification issued by Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) making Aadhaar seeding mandatory for filing ECR with effect from , which allegedly caused operational difficulties during Printed from counselvise.com the transition phase. as under: “No: BKG-27/7/2020 To All Addl. CPFCs(HQ)/ACC (Zones) Subject: Mandatory seeding of Aa Madam/Sir. Section 142 of the Code on Social Secu with effect from 03.05.2021, vide, gazette notification No. 1730(E) dated 30.04.2021. 2. The section 142 of provisions related to Aadhaar, wherein th regulations or Schemes made or framed there under, shall establish his identity or, as the case may be, the identity of his family members or dependents through Aadhaar number 3. In compliance of the above provision in EPFO, the Competent Authority has approved that the ECR shall be allowed to be filed only for those members, whose Aadhaar numbers are seeded and verified with the UANs, wef. 01.06.2021 4 Accordingly, the employers shall be allowed to file the ECR only for the UANs seeded with Aadhaar, w.e. employers are not adversely affected in the transition phase, the following steps and measures may be undertaken by the field offices under your jurisdiction. A zone wise pendency position is attached as an annexure, as a a. All the employers need to be made aware of the mandatory filing of ECR with Aadhaar validated UANs. Therefore, wide publicity may be ensured in this regard. b. The ROs may conduct virtual conferences and also make use of the Social Med handles to reach out to maximum number of employers and subscribers. c. A Nodal officer may be appointed, for coordination of these efforts and to facilitate the resolution of any issues being faced by the employers and members in this regard. d. Daily progress may be obtained from the field offices, to ensure close monitoring Accordingly, the Zonal Offices are requested to ensure strict compliance of the above instructions.” Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. the transition phase. The relevant notification of EPO is reproduced 27/7/2020-G/Pt.file All Addl. CPFCs(HQ)/ACC (Zones) Subject: Mandatory seeding of Aadhaar Number for filing of ECR Section 142 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, has been brought into force, effect from 03.05.2021, vide, gazette notification No. 1730(E) dated 2. The section 142 of Chapter XIV of the Social Security Code, includes the provisions related to Aadhaar, wherein the beneficiary under this Code or hemes made or framed there under, shall establish his identity or, as the case may be, the identity of his family members or dependents through In compliance of the above provision in EPFO, the Competent Authority has ECR shall be allowed to be filed only for those members, whose Aadhaar numbers are seeded and verified with the UANs, wef. 01.06.2021 4 Accordingly, the employers shall be allowed to file the ECR only for the UANs seeded with Aadhaar, w.e.f. 01.06.2021. To ensure that the members and the employers are not adversely affected in the transition phase, the following steps and measures may be undertaken by the field offices under your jurisdiction. A zone wise pendency position is attached as an annexure, as a a. All the employers need to be made aware of the mandatory filing of ECR with validated UANs. Therefore, wide publicity may be ensured in this regard. b. The ROs may conduct virtual conferences and also make use of the Social Med es to reach out to maximum number of employers and subscribers. c. A Nodal officer may be appointed, for coordination of these efforts and to facilitate resolution of any issues being faced by the employers and members in this progress may be obtained from the field offices, to ensure close monitoring Accordingly, the Zonal Offices are requested to ensure strict compliance of the above (Issued with approval of Competent Authority) Nomura Services India Private Limited 8 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 The relevant notification of EPO is reproduced Date: 01.06.2021 dhaar Number for filing of ECR - Reg. ty, 2020, has been brought into force, effect from 03.05.2021, vide, gazette notification No. 1730(E) dated ty Code, includes the e beneficiary under this Code or rules, hemes made or framed there under, shall establish his identity or, as the case may be, the identity of his family members or dependents through In compliance of the above provision in EPFO, the Competent Authority has ECR shall be allowed to be filed only for those members, whose Aadhaar numbers are seeded and verified with the UANs, wef. 01.06.2021 4 Accordingly, the employers shall be allowed to file the ECR only for the UANs o ensure that the members and the employers are not adversely affected in the transition phase, the following steps and measures may be undertaken by the field offices under your jurisdiction. A zone wise pendency position is attached as an annexure, as a ready reference. a. All the employers need to be made aware of the mandatory filing of ECR with validated UANs. Therefore, wide publicity may be ensured in this regard. b. The ROs may conduct virtual conferences and also make use of the Social Media es to reach out to maximum number of employers and subscribers. c. A Nodal officer may be appointed, for coordination of these efforts and to facilitate resolution of any issues being faced by the employers and members in this progress may be obtained from the field offices, to ensure close monitoring. Accordingly, the Zonal Offices are requested to ensure strict compliance of the above (Issued with approval of Competent Authority) Yours faithfully. Printed from counselvise.com 4.5 The learned counsel further referred to the paper book page 47, wherein the mandatory seeding of the Aadhaar number for was extended to 01.09.2021. 4.6 Further the learned counsel referred to the letter dated 31.08.2021 issued by the Employee Provident Fund Organization, wherein the field officer ECR for the wage month of May, 2021 15.06.2021, but could not be filed Aadhaar and directed that those entities should not be presumed as employers in default and each case should be appreciated in own facts u/s 14(b) of EPF Act. 4.7 However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee could not place on record any material to demonstrate whether the complaint made before the Regional PF authorities was adjudicated under section 14B of the EPF Act authorities had accepted the explanation regarding the delay. 5. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on evident that the adjustment relating to employees’ contribu amounting to ₹28,57,553/ under section 143(1) of the Act Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. The learned counsel further referred to the paper book page 47, wherein the mandatory seeding of the Aadhaar number for was extended to 01.09.2021. Further the learned counsel referred to the letter dated 31.08.2021 issued by the Employee Provident Fund Organization, wherein the field officers were advised in relation to delay in filing the ECR for the wage month of May, 2021, which was but could not be filed due to the non Aadhaar and directed that those entities should not be presumed as default and each case should be appreciated in own facts u/s 14(b) of EPF Act. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee could not place on record any material to demonstrate whether the complaint made before the Regional PF authorities was section 14B of the EPF Act, or whether the authorities had accepted the explanation regarding the delay. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. From the facts placed before us, it is adjustment relating to employees’ contribu 28,57,553/- was made while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. The said adjustment was Nomura Services India Private Limited 9 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 -sd- (Rajiv Bisht) ACC (F&A) The learned counsel further referred to the paper book page 47, wherein the mandatory seeding of the Aadhaar number for filing ECR Further the learned counsel referred to the letter dated 31.08.2021 issued by the Employee Provident Fund Organization, advised in relation to delay in filing the which was due on or before due to the non-seeding of the Aadhaar and directed that those entities should not be presumed as default and each case should be appreciated in own However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee could not place on record any material to demonstrate whether the complaint made before the Regional PF authorities was , or whether the authorities had accepted the explanation regarding the delay. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the From the facts placed before us, it is adjustment relating to employees’ contribution to PF was made while processing the return . The said adjustment was not the Printed from counselvise.com subject matter of examination in the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3) under section 143(3) under the intimation issued under independently adjudicate upon the issue of delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution. In such circumstances, the grievance raised by the assessee essentially relates to the under section 143(1) determined under section 143(1) was adopted while framing the assessment under section 143(3) would not convert the adjustment made under section 143(1) into an issue arising from the assessment order passed under section 143(3). 5.1 Accordingly, the appropriate remedy available to the assessee was to challenge the the impugned adjustment was originally made. 5.2 In this regard, we draw support from the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tri Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd. wherein it has been held that intimation under section 143(1) and the assessment order under section 143(3) merely adopts the income det without independently examining the issue, the adjustment cannot be challenged in proceedings arising out of the Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. subject matter of examination in the scrutiny assessment proceedings under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer, while passing the order section 143(3), merely adopted the income already determined under the intimation issued under section 143(1) independently adjudicate upon the issue of delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution. In such circumstances, the grievance raised by the assessee essentially relates to the adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Act. The mere fact tha determined under section 143(1) was adopted while framing the assessment under section 143(3) would not convert the adjustment made under section 143(1) into an issue arising from the assessment order passed under section 143(3). ly, the appropriate remedy available to the assessee was to challenge the intimation issued under section 143(1) the impugned adjustment was originally made. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai in the case of Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3424/Mum/2024) wherein it has been held that where an adjustment is made in the intimation under section 143(1) and the assessment order under section 143(3) merely adopts the income determined therein without independently examining the issue, the adjustment cannot be challenged in proceedings arising out of the Nomura Services India Private Limited 10 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 subject matter of examination in the scrutiny assessment proceedings le passing the order , merely adopted the income already determined section 143(1) and did not independently adjudicate upon the issue of delayed deposit of employees’ PF contribution. In such circumstances, the grievance adjustment made of the Act. The mere fact that the income determined under section 143(1) was adopted while framing the assessment under section 143(3) would not convert the adjustment made under section 143(1) into an issue arising from the assessment ly, the appropriate remedy available to the assessee intimation issued under section 143(1), wherein In this regard, we draw support from the decision of the bunal, Mumbai in the case of (ITA No. 3424/Mum/2024), where an adjustment is made in the intimation under section 143(1) and the assessment order under ermined therein without independently examining the issue, the adjustment cannot be challenged in proceedings arising out of the Printed from counselvise.com assessment order under section 143(3) also explained the scope of the merger would arise only where the adjudicated in the assessment order under section 143(3) the subject matter of the intimation and the assessment order are different, the intimation under section 143(1) does not merg assessment order. Relevant part of decision is reproduced as under We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of the merger of the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act with assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. We find that assessee filed rectification against the intimation order dated 22.09.2022 was disposed off by the AO vide rectification order dated 21.10.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) has cited the submission of the assessee in the impugned order wherein the assessee has requested to merge the appeal against the rectification order with the appeal filed against the assessment order. In our opinion, the assessee itself is accepting that the issue of adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and the rectification order merged with the assessment order. In the ground no. 1 raised before us also, the assessee is praying to this effect. In background of these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that , once, the issue involved in intimation order gets merged with the assessment order, the present appeal becomes infructuous. The irrespective of admission by the assessee, the law itself is clear on the concept of Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. assessment order under section 143(3). The Tribunal in that case also explained the scope of the doctrine of merger merger would arise only where the same issue is examined and adjudicated in the assessment order under section 143(3) the subject matter of the intimation and the assessment order are different, the intimation under section 143(1) does not merg Relevant part of decision is reproduced as under We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of the merger of the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act with assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. We find that assessee filed rectification against the intimation order dated 22.09.2022 was disposed off by the AO vide rectification order dated 21.10.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) has cited the submission of the assessee in the impugned order wherein the assessee has requested to merge the appeal against the rectification order with filed against the assessment order. In our opinion, the assessee itself is accepting that the issue of adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and the rectification order merged with the assessment order. In the ground no. 1 raised before us also, the sessee is praying to this effect. In background of these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that , once, the issue involved in intimation order gets merged with the assessment order, the present appeal becomes infructuous. The irrespective of admission by the assessee, the law itself is clear on the concept of Nomura Services India Private Limited 11 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 . The Tribunal in that case doctrine of merger, observing that same issue is examined and adjudicated in the assessment order under section 143(3). Where the subject matter of the intimation and the assessment order are different, the intimation under section 143(1) does not merge with the Relevant part of decision is reproduced as under: We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue of the merger of the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act with assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. We find that assessee filed rectification against the intimation order dated 22.09.2022 which was disposed off by the AO vide rectification order dated 21.10.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) has cited the submission of the assessee in the impugned order wherein the assessee has requested to merge the appeal against the rectification order with filed against the assessment order. In our opinion, the assessee itself is accepting that the issue of adjustment made u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act and the rectification order merged with the assessment order. In the ground no. 1 raised before us also, the sessee is praying to this effect. In background of these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that , once, the issue involved in intimation order gets merged with the assessment order, the present appeal becomes infructuous. The irrespective of the fact of admission by the assessee, the law itself is clear on the concept of Printed from counselvise.com merger between an intimation and the assessment has been dealt with by various Hon’ble Courts and the Benches of the Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Magnesite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax No. 17819/2001 the Act, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act get merged with the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act does not survive independently for rectification by the Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CESC Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 134 Taxman 647 (Cal) when assessee accepted in the intimation has been reversed in the regular assessment and the assessee has preferred appeal which is pending, the theory of merger is bound to apply in the present case for the reason that the intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is no longer operative. The Co Tribunal in South India Club v. ITO (2024) 163 taxmann.com 479 (Delhi) held that exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was denied vide the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the matter was picked up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer also denied the same exemption in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Co intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act merges with the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the said intimation becomes inoperative and the appeal filed against such intimation could also become infructuous. But if the subject matter of adjustment u/s Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. merger between an intimation and the assessment has been dealt with by various Hon’ble Courts and the Benches of the Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Magnesite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax No. 17819/2001 held that after passing of an order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act get merged with the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act does not survive independently for rectification by the Officer. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CESC Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 134 Taxman 647 (Cal) when assessee accepted in the intimation has been reversed in the regular assessment and the assessee has preferred appeal which the theory of merger is bound to apply in the present case for the reason that the intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is no longer operative. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in South India Club v. ITO (2024) 163 taxmann.com held that exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was denied vide the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the matter was picked up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer also denied the same exemption in the assessment order u/s t. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal held that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act merges with the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the said intimation becomes inoperative and the appeal filed against such intimation could also uctuous. But if the subject matter of adjustment u/s Nomura Services India Private Limited 12 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 merger between an intimation and the assessment has been dealt with by various Hon’ble Courts and the Benches of the Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Tamil Nadu, Magnesite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Writ Petition held that after passing of an order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act get merged with the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act does not survive independently for rectification by the Officer. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CESC Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 134 Taxman 647 (Cal) held that when assessee accepted in the intimation has been reversed in the regular assessment and the assessee has preferred appeal which the theory of merger is bound to apply in the present case for the reason that the intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) of the ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in South India Club v. ITO (2024) 163 taxmann.com held that exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act was denied vide the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the matter was picked up for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer also denied the same exemption in the assessment order u/s ordinate Bench of the Tribunal held that intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act merges with the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and the said intimation becomes inoperative and the appeal filed against such intimation could also uctuous. But if the subject matter of adjustment u/s Printed from counselvise.com 143(1) of the Act and section 143(3) are different then said concept of the merger may not apply. In the case of NFAC reported in Bengluru Bench of the Tribunal observed that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil which was processed by the Assessing Officer and in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered an amount of Rs.23,29,62,417/ Act. The assessee filed a rectification application against the said intimation u/s 154 of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed whereby assessing total income at Rs.23,29,63,417/ the Act. The Assessing Officer merely repeated the figure of the income which was mentioned in the intimation order, the assessee preferred appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) held that appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was not maintainable since the assessee did not adjudicate the matter on merits and merely concluded the assessment by incorporating adjustment from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Similarly, the Co the Tribunal in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 1124 (Delhi the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Areca Trust (supra). From the above decisions, it is clear that an intimation Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. 143(1) of the Act and section 143(3) are different then said concept of the merger may not apply. In the case of Areca Trust v. CIT(A), reported in (2024) 117 ITR (Trib) 264 (ITAT[Bang]) ru Bench of the Tribunal observed that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil which was processed by the Assessing Officer and in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered an amount of ,417/- as income chargeable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application against the said intimation u/s 154 of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s Act was passed whereby assessing total income at Rs.23,29,63,417/- as per the intimation letter issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer merely repeated the figure of the income which was mentioned in the intimation order, the assessee appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) held that appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was not maintainable since the assessee did not adjudicate the matter on merits and merely concluded the assessment by incorporating adjustment from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Similarly, the Co- Tribunal in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 1124 (Delhi-Trib.) also affirm the finding o ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Areca Trust (supra). From the above decisions, it is clear that an intimation Nomura Services India Private Limited 13 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 143(1) of the Act and section 143(3) are different then said concept Areca Trust v. CIT(A), (2024) 117 ITR (Trib) 264 (ITAT[Bang]), the ru Bench of the Tribunal observed that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil which was processed by the Assessing Officer and in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered an amount of as income chargeable to tax u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee filed a rectification application against the said intimation u/s 154 of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s Act was passed whereby assessing total income at as per the intimation letter issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer merely repeated the figure of the income which was mentioned in the intimation order, the assessee appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) held that appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was not maintainable since the assessee did not adjudicate the matter on merits and merely concluded the assessment by incorporating adjustment from the -ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Orient Craft Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) also affirm the finding of ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Areca Trust (supra). From the above decisions, it is clear that an intimation Printed from counselvise.com order u/s 143(1) of the Act will not automatically merged with the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act in case where the dealt in the intimation order and the assessment order are different and in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act merely the income adopted under the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act has been accepted and no addition has been made separ The ld counsel referred before us to the decision of the Coordinate bench of Mumbai in the case of India Limited vs DCIT in ITA No. 732/Mum/2023 21 and submitted that no appeal lied against assessment order, but we find that in said case the adjustment which was made in intimation order, was not made in the assessment order passed after discussion. Thus, facts of that case are different from the facts of instant case before us. 8.3 In light of the above discus the present case, it is evident that the adjustment proposed in the order issued under Section 143(1) of the Act pertains to the deduction claimed under Section 80JJAA of the Act. Notably, the same issue has also been addr Section 143(3) of the Act, which is currently under appeal before the Learned First Appellate Authority. order under Section 143(1)(a) is whether the deduction under Section 80JJAA should be restr extended to the gross total income. The assessee contends that the Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. order u/s 143(1) of the Act will not automatically merged with the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act in case where the dealt in the intimation order and the assessment order are different and in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act merely the income adopted under the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act has been accepted and no addition has been made separ The ld counsel referred before us to the decision of the Coordinate bench of Mumbai in the case of National Stock Exchange of India Limited vs DCIT in ITA No. 732/Mum/2023 21 and submitted that no appeal lied against assessment order, t we find that in said case the adjustment which was made in intimation order, was not made in the assessment order passed after discussion. Thus, facts of that case are different from the facts of instant case before us. In light of the above discussion, upon examining the facts of the present case, it is evident that the adjustment proposed in the order issued under Section 143(1) of the Act pertains to the deduction claimed under Section 80JJAA of the Act. Notably, the same issue has also been addressed in the order issued under Section 143(3) of the Act, which is currently under appeal before the Learned First Appellate Authority. The primary question in the order under Section 143(1)(a) is whether the deduction under Section 80JJAA should be restricted to the business income or extended to the gross total income. The assessee contends that the Nomura Services India Private Limited 14 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 order u/s 143(1) of the Act will not automatically merged with the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act in case where the issues dealt in the intimation order and the assessment order are different and in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act merely the income adopted under the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act has been accepted and no addition has been made separately. The ld counsel referred before us to the decision of the Coordinate National Stock Exchange of India Limited vs DCIT in ITA No. 732/Mum/2023 for AY 2020- 21 and submitted that no appeal lied against assessment order, t we find that in said case the adjustment which was made in intimation order, was not made in the assessment order passed after discussion. Thus, facts of that case are different from the sion, upon examining the facts of the present case, it is evident that the adjustment proposed in the order issued under Section 143(1) of the Act pertains to the deduction claimed under Section 80JJAA of the Act. Notably, the essed in the order issued under Section 143(3) of the Act, which is currently under appeal before The primary question in the order under Section 143(1)(a) is whether the deduction under icted to the business income or extended to the gross total income. The assessee contends that the Printed from counselvise.com deduction, being calculated based on the expenditure incurred, should not be limited to the business income. However, in the assessment order, the assessee d responses to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied the entire deduction claim amounting to deduction is identical in both the order under Secti the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the former order effectively merges with the latter. 5.3 In the present case, the disallowance of solely in the intimation issued under section 143(1) Assessing Officer did not adjudicate the issue in the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) by the assessee in the present appeal is not maintainable. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the coord Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) appeal, insofar as it seeks to challenge the adjustment made under section 143(1), cannot be entertained in proceedings arising from the assessment order passed under section 1 5.4 Accordingly, the order of the learned dispute is set aside remedy as may be available in law against the intimation issued under section 143(1) Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. deduction, being calculated based on the expenditure incurred, should not be limited to the business income. However, in the assessment order, the assessee did not provide complete responses to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied the entire deduction claim amounting to ₹30,10,31,823. Given that the issue of deduction is identical in both the order under Secti the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the former order effectively merges with the latter. In the present case, the disallowance of ₹28,57,553/ intimation issued under section 143(1) Assessing Officer did not adjudicate the issue in the assessment section 143(3). Consequently, the challenge raised by the assessee in the present appeal is not maintainable. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the coord Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the present appeal, insofar as it seeks to challenge the adjustment made under cannot be entertained in proceedings arising from the assessment order passed under section 143(3). Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) on the issue under set aside, with liberty to the assessee to pursue such remedy as may be available in law against the intimation issued section 143(1). Nomura Services India Private Limited 15 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 deduction, being calculated based on the expenditure incurred, should not be limited to the business income. However, in the id not provide complete responses to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Assessing Officer denied the entire deduction Given that the issue of deduction is identical in both the order under Section 143(1) and the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the former order 28,57,553/- was made intimation issued under section 143(1) and the Assessing Officer did not adjudicate the issue in the assessment . Consequently, the challenge raised by the assessee in the present appeal is not maintainable. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the coordinate bench in , we hold that the present appeal, insofar as it seeks to challenge the adjustment made under cannot be entertained in proceedings arising from the on the issue under , with liberty to the assessee to pursue such remedy as may be available in law against the intimation issued Printed from counselvise.com 6. In the result the appeal f maintainable Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/03/2026 M. RanganathVittal , Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Nomura Services India Private Limited ITA No. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non ced in the open Court on 27/03 Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Nomura Services India Private Limited 16 ITA No. 7920/MUM/2025 iled by the assessee is dismissed as non- /03/2026. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "