TELEPERFORMANCE GLOBAL BUSINESS PVT. LTD.,MAHARASHTRA V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (JAO-DCIT CIRCLE 13(3) MUMBAI), MUMBAI

SA 15/MUM/2026

AI Insights

Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of TPUSA INC, filed multiple stay applications against outstanding tax demands for the assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23. The demands were related to transfer pricing adjustments and other tax assessments. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already deposited 20% of the disputed amounts as per previous orders and that the non-disposal of the appeals was not due to any fault of the assessee but due to ongoing legal proceedings concerning similar issues. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Private Ltd. and granted the stays sought by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833705 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Pepsi Foods Private Ltd. vs. DCIT, ROCA Bathroom vs. Income Tax Department
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN SALUNKHE
• Assessee Lawyers: NEERAJ JAIN; RAMIT KATYAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Period of limitation; Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) S.A. No. 15/Mum/2026 IN I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) & S.A. No. 16/Mum/2026 IN I.T.A. No. 6637/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) & S.A. No. 17/Mum/2026 IN I.T.A. No. 6864/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) & S.A. No. 18/Mum/2026 IN I.T.A. No. 8717/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-22) Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. Plot CST No.1406-A/28, Teleperformance Towers Mindspace, Goregaon(West), Mumbai PAN: AABCC6211B Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (JAO- DCIT Circle 13(3) Mumbai) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Neeraj Jain, Shri Ramit Katyal & Shri Dhruv Seth Respondent by Shri Pravin Salunkhe – SR D.R. Printed from counselvise.com SA Nos. 15-18/Mum/2026 Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. 2 Date of Hearing 30.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 ORDER Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: Present stay applications filed by the assessee seeking stay of outstanding demand for the years under consideration. 1. The Ld. AR submitted that assessee is one of subsidiary of TPUSA INC a DLAWARE Corporation (hereinafter referred to as TPUSA) incorporated in India and is engaged in business of providing voice-based call centre services to its customers. The Ld. AR submitted that this company has been formed by merger of CRM Services India Pvt. Ltd. and Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that the merger was as per the order passed by NCLAT dated 21.04.2024 and the appointment date was 04.04.2023. 2. The Ld. AR submitted that in Stay Application No.15 stay is sought in respect of CRM Services India Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2020-21. It is submitted that the outstanding demand was computed at Rs.16,80,43,420/-. The Ld. AR submitted that this Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.2024 in Stay Application No.94/Mum/2024 had granted stay subject to payment of 20% of this outstanding demand in the following manner: S. N o. Issue Amount of addition Tax amount Interest amount Total Tax + Interest Tax + Interest on uncovered issues 3 Transfer pricing adjustment to the Printed from counselvise.com SA Nos. 15-18/Mum/2026 Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. 3 arm’s length price of ‘international transactions’ of payment of commission for marketing services 88,41,30,6 64 22,04,38,0 79 10,94,71,1 37 32,99,09,2 15 32,99,09,2 15 4 Addition made in the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act 01,02,01,0 77 25,43,409 12,63,075 38,06,484 38,06,484 Total 1,24,50,8 9,998 31,04,35, 163 15,41,64, 337 46,45,99, 500 33,37,15, 700 20% of disputed demand 6,67,43,1 40 2.1 The Ld. AR however submitted that Rs.3,36,08,685/- being 20% has already been paid on the total outstanding demand. The Ld. AR submitted that subsequently the stay was not extended as the appeal was adjourned sine die due to the ground raised by the assessee challenging validity of the order passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of ROCA Bathroom, which was subjudice before Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the department has been seeking time in respect of the same. 2.2 The Ld. AR submitted that present stay application though is not an extension of the earlier stay dated 08.10.2024, however, 20% of the outstanding demand already stands deposited pursuant to order dated 08.10.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.94/Mum/2024. He thus prayed that, the stay may be granted considering the fact that necessary condition under Section 254(2A) stands satisfied. 2.3 On the contrary the Ld. DR objected to the prayer of the assessee and insisted upon the entire demand to be deposited. 3. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. Printed from counselvise.com SA Nos. 15-18/Mum/2026 Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. 4 Admittedly, present petition cannot be treated to be an extension of the earlier stay. However, it cannot be ignored that 20% of the outstanding demand has been paid by the assessee. The requirement u/s 254(2A) thus stands satisfied as on the date. 3.1 On merits of the case, the Ld. AR has submitted that the issues contested by the assessee are already decided in favour of assessee by co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the preceding assessment years. The assessee has thus made out a prima facie good case on merits. 3.2 Considering the totality of the facts and keeping in mind the non-disposal of the appeal cannot be attributed to the assessee, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pepsi Foods Private Ltd. reported in 376 ITR 87 which has been confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 126 Taxman.com69, we grant extension of the stay for a period of 6 months from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. Accordingly, Stay Application No.15 stands allowed. Stay Application No.16 4. The Stay application filed by the assessee pertains to erstwhile CRM Services India Pvt. Ltd. wherein the outstanding demand of Rs.46,45,99,500/- was computed vide notice dated 28.10.2024 for assessment year 2021-22. Printed from counselvise.com SA Nos. 15-18/Mum/2026 Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. 5 Stay Application No.17 4.1 This application pertains to erstwhile known as Teleperformance Global Services Private Ltd. The assessee is seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs.28,40,81,131/- for assessment year 2021-22. 4.2 The Ld. AR submitted that thus total outstanding demand for both these assessees’ for assessment year 2021-22 is Rs.74,86,80,631/-. He submitted that refund is due to the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 amounting to Rs.1,57,28,841/-. The Ld. AR intimated that Rs.17,47,64,977/- stands adjusted against the total outstanding demand which is more than 20% of the total disputed tax for both these assessees’ for assessment year 2021-22. He placed reliance on the refund adjusted challan placed at Page 192 & 193 of the paper-book in support of this contention. The Ld. AR thus prayed for the stay of balance outstanding demand for a period of 6 months. 4.3 The Ld. DR on the contrary, though could not controvert the above submissions of the assessee submitted that assessee may be directed to furnish the entire payment which is outstanding as on date. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 4.4 Admittedly, 20% of the outstanding demand stands adjusted by way of challan No.42159 & 39462 dated 09.10.2025 placed at page No.192-193 of the paper-book. Further, from the dates and events placed along with the stay application, it is noted that, Printed from counselvise.com SA Nos. 15-18/Mum/2026 Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. 6 non-disposal of the appeal cannot be attributed to the assessee, as the assessee had raised the legal issue challenging the validity of the final assessment order passed beyond the period of limitation based on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Roca Bathrobe Private Ltd. which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for adjudication. It is noted that the department has been taking time in respect of the same and therefore, the appeal was blocked. 4.5 It is noted that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case till date. We therefore are inclined to grant stay to the assessee for a period of 6 months (180 days) or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier, from the date of this order. Accordingly, Stay Application Nos. 16-17 stands allowed. Stay Application No.18 5. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that this stay application is in respect of the erstwhile CRM Services India Private Ltd. for assessment year 2022-23 seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs.39,59,06,720/-. The Ld. AR submitted that there is an outstanding refund due to assessee for assessment year 2018-19 amounting to Rs.48,20,87,150/-. He thus prayed that 20% of the outstanding demand for the year under consideration amounting to Rs.7,91,81,344/- may be adjusted out of the refund due to the assessee for assessment year 2018-19. 5.1 On the contrary, the Ld. DR prayed for the entire demand to be paid by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com SA Nos. 15-18/Mum/2026 Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. 7 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials on record, we note that OGE was issued for assessment year 2018- 19 on 29.09.2025 placed at page No.141-142 of the paper-book. It is noted that a refund due to assessee of Rs.48,20,87,150/-. It is noted that 20% of the outstanding demand for the year under consideration amounts to Rs.7,91,81,344/-. As per the submissions of the Ld. AR, we direct the Ld. AO to adjust the 20% of the outstanding demand from the refund due for assessment year 2018-19. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the refund due for AY 2018-19 after adjusting 20% of the outstanding demand. Stay is thus granted for a period of 6 months from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the Stay Application No.18 filed by the assessee stands allowed. In the result, all Stay Applications filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 02/02/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary Printed from counselvise.com SA Nos. 15-18/Mum/2026 Teleperformance Global Business Pvt. Ltd. 8 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "