RAS LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

MA 84/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves RAS Lifesciences Pvt Ltd, which filed a Miscellaneous Application against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the Assessment Year 2020-21. The application sought rectification of mistakes apparent on record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The errors pertained to the description of the company's business activities and the assertion regarding the non-submission of Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation. The Tribunal found that the errors were clerical and rectifiable, leading to the correction of the order and a remand of the issue for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822658 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: REEMA
• Keywords: Set aside; Transfer pricing; Rectification of order

Judgement Text

" MA No 84 of 2025 RAS Lifesciences Pvt Ltd Page 1 of 6 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Įी ͪवजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, लेखा सदè य क े सम¢ । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member M.A. No.84/Hyd/2025 आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.788/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2020-21) RAS Lifesciences Private Limited, New Delhi PAN:AADCR9864P Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Advocate Reema राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Smt. Kritika Jaiswal, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 19/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application (“M.A.”) has been filed by the assessee against the order of this Tribunal passed in ITA No. 788/Hyd/2024 for Assessment Year 2020-21, dated 04.04.2025, under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), seeking rectification of mistakes apparent on record. 2. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) of the assessee invited our attention to para no. 4 of the M.A and submitted that certain inadvertent errors have crept into para no. 5 Printed from counselvise.com MA No 84 of 2025 RAS Lifesciences Pvt Ltd Page 2 of 6 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. It was submitted that the said errors are purely clerical/inadvertent in nature and constitute mistakes apparent from record, which are liable to be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that this Tribunal has already remanded the issue to the file of the lower authority for fresh adjudication, and therefore, according to her, the alleged errors can be verified and addressed during the remand proceedings. She accordingly contended that no rectification is required in the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the contents of the M.A. as well as the impugned order of the Tribunal. We have gone through para no. 4 of the M.A which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com MA No 84 of 2025 RAS Lifesciences Pvt Ltd Page 3 of 6 5. We have also gone through para no. 5 of the impugned order of this Tribunal, which is to the following effect: “5. Ground nos.3 to 7 of the assessee are related to adjustment made by the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO on account of sale of goods of Rs.9,15,68,139/-. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is engaged in trading of diagnostic kits and adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) as Most Appropriate Method (“MAM”) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”). However, the Ld. TPO rejected the method adopted by the assessee and adopted the Transaction Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) as MAM. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the Ld. TPO selected the comparables that do not match with the functions of the assessees. In support of their submission, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para nos.2 & 7 of the order of Ld. TPO and submitted that Ld. TPO has selected the company having R & D services, R&D Centre for bio medical and radiology research, R & D in natural science, etc. Accordingly, the Ld. AR objected that, as the assessee is engaged in trading and not in R&D activity, which makes the selection of comparable inappropriate. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to para nos.4.2 & 5 of the order of Ld. TPO wherein the Ld. TPO has mentioned that the assessee has not submitted Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to the evidence regarding filing of TP documentation placed at page nos.107 to 162 of the paper book and contended that the TP documentation were filed before the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. TPO incorrectly stated that the assessee had not filed the TP documentation. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO is on incorrect assumption that no TP documentation has been filed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AR also invited our attention to the order passed by Ld. AO u/s.271G placed at page no.239 of the paper book and submitted that during penalty proceedings, the Ld. AO convinced that the TP documentation were filed by the assessee before the Ld. TPO and therefore deleted the penalty. The Ld. AR finally prayed before the bench, as the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO has passed the order on the basis of incorrect functions of the assessee and on the basis of wrong assumption that no TP documentation has been filed by Printed from counselvise.com MA No 84 of 2025 RAS Lifesciences Pvt Ltd Page 4 of 6 the assessee, accordingly, the issue may be set aside to the file of Ld. AO/Ld. TPO for fresh adjudication. ” 6. On perusal of above, we find that certain inadvertent errors, as specifically pointed out by the Ld. AR in para no. 4 of the M.A, have indeed crept into para no.5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The said errors are apparent from record and are rectifiable within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, accepting the contention of the assessee, we hold that para no. 5 of the impugned order requires rectification. Therefore, para no. 5 of the Tribunal’s order dated 04.04.2025 is hereby deleted and replaced by the following paragraph: “5. Ground nos.3 to 7 of the assessee are related to adjustment made by the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO on account of sale of goods of Rs.9,15,68,139/-. The Ld. AR submitted that, the assessee is engaged in the business of development and manufacturing molecular biology based product. The assessee has established a quality management system for manufacturing and marketing molecular diagnostic kits for in-vitro diagnostic use and enzymes for biotech application. The assessee also undertakes research & development activity in the field of IVD Kits and reagents on its own accord under the guidance of the group. The assessee adopted the “other method” as Most Appropriate Method (\"MAM\") for determining the Arm's Length Price (\"ALP\"). However, the Ld. TPO rejected the method adopted by the assessee and adopted the Transaction Net Margin Method (\"TNMM\") as MAM. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the Ld. TPO selected the comparables that do not match with the functions of the assessees. In support of their submission, the Ld. AR invited our attention to para nos.2 & 7 of the order of Ld. TPO and submitted that Ld. TPO has selected the company having R & D services, R&D Centre for bio medical and radiology research, R & D in natural science, etc. Accordingly, the Ld. AR objected that, as the assessee is engaged in trading and not in R&D activity, which makes the selection of comparable inappropriate. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to para nos.4.2 & 5 of the order of Ld. TPO wherein the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com MA No 84 of 2025 RAS Lifesciences Pvt Ltd Page 5 of 6 TPO has mentioned that the assessee has not submitted Transfer Pricing (\"TP\") documentation. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to the evidence regarding filing of TP documentation placed at page nos.107 to 162 of the paper book and contended that the TP documentation were filed before the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. TPO incorrectly stated that the assessee had not filed the TP documentation. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO is on incorrect assumption that no TP documentation has been filed by the assessee. Further, the Ld. AR also invited our attention page no.239 of the paper book and submitted that the penalty proceedings under section 271G of the Act were initiated and dropped by the Ld. TPO himself, upon being satisfied with the TP documentation filed by the assessee before the Ld. TPO. The Ld. AR finally prayed before the Bench, as the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO has passed the order on the basis of incorrect functions of the assessee and on the basis of wrong assumption that no TP documentation has been filed by the assessee, accordingly, the issue may be set aside to the file of Ld. AO/Ld. TPO for fresh adjudication.” 7. Since the rectification is confined only to the above extent, the remaining part of the impugned order shall remain unchanged. 8. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24th December 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 24th December 2025 Vinodan/sps Printed from counselvise.com MA No 84 of 2025 RAS Lifesciences Pvt Ltd Page 6 of 6 Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 RAS Lifesciences (P) Ltd 43A, 1st Floor, Okhla Industrial Estate, Modi Mill Compound, Okhla Phase III New Delhi 2 Dy. CIT, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "