WINGTECH MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHRA PRADESH V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

SA 40/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Wingtech Mobile Communication (India) Private Limited, which filed an application seeking a stay against the recovery of an outstanding demand of Rs.23.74 crores under the MAT provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that they opted for the new tax regime under section 115BAA, which should exempt them from MAT under section 115JB, and that the demand was incorrectly raised. The Tribunal considered the submissions and the adjustments already made by the Assessing Officer, including TDS and refund adjustments, and decided to stay the recovery pending the appeal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826152 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR PANDI P
• Assessee Lawyers: RUCHIKA AGARWAL; SELECTING NO AGAINST HE QUERY
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; TDS; Application of stay
• Section: 92E

Judgement Text

" 1 S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 Arising out of आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.2269/Hyd/2025 – A.Y. 2022-2023 M/s. Wingtech Mobile Communication (India) Private Limited, I T Park, Kothapalem B.O. Renigunta, CHITTOOR - 517 520. Andhra Pradesh. PAN AACCW3514A vs. The DCIT, Central Circle, Tirupati. (Applicant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा /Assessee by: CA Ruchika Agarwal राज̾ व Ȫारा /Revenue by: Sri Sankar Pandi P, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.01.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : By way of this application, the assessee seeking the stay against the recovery of outstanding gross demand of Rs.23.74 crores arising under Minimum Alternative Tax [in Printed from counselvise.com 2 S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 short “MAT”] provisions u/sec.115JB of the Income Tax Act [in short “the Act”], 1961. 2. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee is a loss-making company and filed the return of income declaring loss under the normal provisions of computation. The assessee also opted for new tax regime u/sec.115BAA of the Act by filing Form-10IC on 30.11.2022 which is the due date of filing the Form-10IC in the case of the assessee having international transactions under the provisions of sec.92 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the CPC while processing the return of income, has assessed the income under MAT and raised a demand of Rs.23.74 crores whereas as per the provisions of sec.115BAA the provisions of MAT u/sec.115JB is not applicable once the assessee has opted for new tax regime. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further pointed out that against the gross demand of Rs.23.74 crores, the Assessing Officer has already adjusted the TDS of Rs.3.14 crores which was claimed as refund in the Printed from counselvise.com 3 S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 return of income and thereafter also adjusted a sum of Rs.2.26 crores as refund for the assessment year 2023-2024. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the recovery made by the Assessing Officer in the shape of TDS as well as the refund for the assessment year 2023-2024 is more than 20% of the total demand. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that though there was a delay in filing the Form-3CEB it was filed on 08.06.2023 during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. However, once the assessee has opted for the new tax regime and assessee is falling under the provisions of sec.92, then the addition made by the CPC under the MAT provisions is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. Thus, the assessee is having a good prima facie case on merits. Apart from the TDS as well as refund for the assessment year 2003-2004, the assessee already paid a sum of Rs.1 crore vide challan dated 25.12.2025, a copy of the same is filed. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has further submitted that for the assessment year 2024-2025, there is a refund of Rs.3,29,07,050/- and Printed from counselvise.com 4 S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 the Assessing Officer has issued notice for adjustment of the said refund against the outstanding demand for the year under consideration. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has filed the scanned copy of the proposal made by the Assessing Officer for adjusting the refund against the outstanding demand. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has pleaded that the recovery of the outstanding balance demand may be stayed, and Assessing Officer may be directed not to adjust the refund for the assessment year 2024-2025 against the outstanding demand involved in the present case till the appeal of the assessee is decided. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the stay against the recovery of the demand and submitted that the assessee has not filed the TP audit report u/sec.92E in Form-3CEB along with the return of income or Form-10IC. Therefore, at the time of processing the return by the CPC in the ITR, the details regarding the audit information were given by the assessee by selecting ‘NO’ against he query where it was required to furnish a report u/sec.92E of the Printed from counselvise.com 5 S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 Act. Once the assessee has stated in the return of income that no audit report is required to furnish u/sec.92E, then the due date for filing the Form-10IC was 31.10.2022 and not 30.11.2022 which is applicable only in the cases covered u/sec.92E of the Act. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that the CPC has rightly assessed the income of the assessee under the MAT provisions as the Form-10IC was filed by the assessee after the due date. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The demand in question arises on the assessment of income by the CPC under the MAT provisions u/sec.115JB. There is no dispute that the assessee has filed Form-10IC under the provisions of sec.115BAA by exercising the option of new tax regime but the said Form-10IC was filed on 30.11.2022 which was not considered by the CPC while processing the return of income and making the adjustment/addition under MAT provisions. The assessee has filed the return declaring loss and, therefore, the TDS credit as per Form-26AS was claimed as refund. It is also not in dispute that the assessee was having Printed from counselvise.com 6 S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 international transactions and, therefore, the case of the assessee falls u/sec.92 and particularly, 92E of the Act. The assessee though filed the TP audit report u/sec.92E in Form- 3CEB, but the same was filed subsequently on 08.06.2023 after the CPC processing the return of income on 20.02.2023. Thus, the issue involved in the appeal is whether the provisions of sec.115JB are applicable in the case of the assessee or not? Out of the total demand of Rs.23.74 crores, the total recovery till date has been made by the assessee on account of TDS, it was claimed as refund of Rs.3.14 crores and adjustment of refund of Rs.2.26 crores for the assessment year 2023-2024 as well as payment of Rs.1 crore by the assessee vide challan dated 25.12.2025 [totaling more than Rs.6.40 crores] which is more than 20% of the total demand. The issue of applicability of the MAT provisions u/sec.115JB has to be considered and decided in the appeal of the assessee which is fixed for hearing on 14.04.2026. Accordingly, we prepone the hearing of the appeal from 14.04.2026 to 09.02.2026 as out of hearing in stay granted matters. The Assessing Officer is directed not to take any Printed from counselvise.com 7 S.A.No.40/Hyd./2025 coercive action for recovery of the balance outstanding demand for a period of 90 days or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal of the assessee in the category of ‘stay granted’ on 09.02.2026. Since the date is announced in the open Court and noted by both the parties, no separate notice would be issued in this regard. 5. In the result, stay application of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 09th January, 2026 VBP Copy to: 1. M/s. Wingtech Mobile Communication (India) Private Limited, R/o.Sy.No.217, 220, 221/2222 (Part 01 to 09 & 16), I T Park, Kothapalem B.O. Renigunta, CHITTOOR. Andhra Pradesh. PIN 517 520. 2. The DCIT, Central Circle, Income Tax Office, Near SBI Tilak Road Branch, K T Road, Tirupati. 3. The CIT(A), Visakhapatnam-3, Visakhapatnam 4. The Pr. CIT-(Central), Visakhapatnam. 4. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER //True copy// Printed from counselvise.com "