"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4392 & 5501/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2021-22] Expeditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No.-7B First Floor, Import Building No.3 International Cargo Terminal IGI Airport, New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACE1795K vs DCIT Circle-7(1) C.R. Building I. P. Estate New Delhi-110002 APPELLANT RESPONDENT S.A.No.500/Del/2024 [In ITA No.5501/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2021-22] Expeditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No.-7B First Floor, Import Building No.3 International Cargo Terminal IGI Airport, New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACE1795K vs DCIT Circle-7(1) C.R. Building I. P. Estate New Delhi-110002 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Rohan Khare, Adv. & Shri Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Revenue by Shri S K Jadhav, CIT DR Date of Hearing 05.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.03.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the different assessment orders, both dated 29.10.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 2 alongwith Stay Application filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Both appeals have common issues therefore, both the appeals are adjudicated by a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. First we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No.5501/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2021-22]. ITA No.5501/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2021-22] 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company engaged in global freight forwarding and logistics services and operates in 03 segments namely, airfreight, ocean freight and ocean services; custom brokerage; and import services. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for various reasons and a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) of international transactions carried out by the assessee during the year under appeal. The TPO vide its order dated 28.07.2023 passed the order wherein following adjustments are proposed:- S.No. International Transaction Amount (In INR) 1. Sale of logistics Services 1,46,37,41,000/- 2. Royalty paid/payable 17,64,25,299/- 3. Provision of Software Development 1,04,25,000/- 4. Global accounts manager expenses paid 5,80,64,686/- 5. Leaseline Charges paid 82,89,622/- Total 1,71,69,45,607/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 3 5. Thereafter, the said order was rectified in terms of the order passed u/s 154 of the Act dated 15.09.2023 accordingly, the adjustments were reduced from INR 1,71,69,45,607/- to INR 103,40,32,607/- which are tabulated as under:- S.No. Particulars Amount (In INR) 1. Sale of logistics Services 78,08,28,000/- 2. Royalty paid/payable 17,64,25,299/- 3. Provision of Software Development 1,04,25,000/- 4. Global accounts manager expenses paid 5,80,64,686/- 5. Leaseline Charge paid 82,89,622/- Total 1,03,40,32,607/- 6. Subsequently, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act dated 25.09.2023 wherein the AO proposed total income of the assessee to be assessed at INR 3,24,95,44,049/- as against the returned income of INR 1,50,27,65,280/- by proposing following additions:- S.No. Description Amount (In INR) 1. Income as per Return of income filed 1,50,27,65,280/- 2. Income as computed u/s 143(1) 1,51,17,37,290/- 3. Addition proposed 1. Income from other sources 1,60,99,834 2. TP adjustments 1,71,69,45,607/- 3. Deduction disallowed under section 80G 47,61,318/- 1,73,78,06,759/- 4 Total income Proposed 3,24,95,44,049/- 7. Against this order, the assessee filed objections before Ld. DRP who accepted certain objections and directed the AO/TPO for making Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 4 necessary adjustments in terms of the directions given. Following directions given by ld. DPR, the AO/TPO passed the order giving effect on 29.07.2024 according to which the total adjustments were reduced to INR 82,16,09,985/- as tabulated below:- 8. Finally, AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act wherein total income was assessed at INR 235,42,08,427/- by making additions as proposed by TPO in order giving effect as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 5 (i) Income from other sources INR 1,60,99,834 (ii) TP Adjustment as discussed above (original TP adjustment adopted subject to rectification and adoption of revised figures on receipt of TPO revised proceedings) INR 82,16,09,985 (iii) Deduction disallowed u/s 80G INR 47,61,318 9. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal wherein alongwith appeal memo as many as 45 Grounds of appeal were taken, which were later modified and concise Grounds of appeal are filed which reads as under:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 4,16,17,21,438 in pursuance to the directions issued by the DRP, as against the returned income of INR 1,89,06,33,990. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order dated October 29, 2024 passed by the AO is barred by limitation and thus, bad in law and liable to be quashed, as it has been passed beyond the time frame prescribed under section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act. 3. That the Final Assessment Order dated 29.11.2024 is not in conformity with the directions of the DRP in terms of Section 144C(10) of the Act and hence, liable to be quashed. Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to INR 163,58,75,000 in respect of the Logistics Segment 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/DRP/TPO have erred in making/confirming the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 163,58,75,000 in respect of the Logistics Segment. 5. Without prejudice to ground no. 3 above, the adjustment in respect of the logistics segment in any case deserves to be set aside as not being in compliance of the directions of the DRP and hence, violative of Section 144C(10) of the Act. 6. That without prejudice, the AO/TPO erred in not (i) allowing the economic adjustment on account of difference in working capital vis-a-vis the comparable companies, (ii) adopting of correct computation of margins of Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 6 comparable companies for logistic segment; and (ii) considering the corresponding effect of the adjustment made with respect to other transactions (i.e. royalty and Global Account Manager (\"GAM\") Charges paid) while computing the operating profit margins of the Appellant under logistic segment. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AD/TPO/DRP have erred in rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant for determining the arm's length price under section 920 of the Act read with Rule 100 of the rules, and in conducting a fresh economic analysis without considering the submissions and data furnished. Further, the TPO erred in disregarding the filters applied by the Appellant and arbitrarily modifying/applying additional filters not aligned with the Appellant's functional profile, which was wrongly upheld by the AO/DRP. 8. That TPO erred in arbitrarily rejecting the filter of excluding companies having Net Fixed Assets to Net Sales more than 25%, as applied by the Appellant in the TP documentation, ignoring the submissions of the Appellant. 9. That the TPO erred in arbitrarily rejecting functionally comparable companies selected by the Appellant for the purpose of benchmarking the subject international transactions and further erred in indulging in cherry picking of functionally different comparables on the basis of arbitrary search fitters and incorrect appreciation of FAR profile of the Appellant. Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to INR 55,83,76,685 in respect of the international transactions pertaining to payment of royalty: 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO has erred in making and the AO/DRP have erred in upholding the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 55,83,76,685 in respect of the international transaction pertaining to payment of royalty alleging the same to be not at arm's length and without considering the submissions made by the Appellant in this regard. 11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/DRP have erred in disregarding the arm's length price determined by the Appellant in its transfer pricing documentation maintained under section 92D of the Act and Rule 10D of the Rules, and in arbitrarily rejecting the benchmarking analysis and methodology adopted by the Appellant using aggregated Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM\") for the international transaction of royalty payment. Further, have erred in applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (\"CUP\") method and selecting functionally incomparable royalty agreements/companies, without appreciating the Appellant's functional asset and risk (\"FAR\") profile and the detailed submissions furnished during the proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 7 12. That the AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the Payment of Royalty was subsumed in the cost base for the purposes of benchmarking the Logistics segment, a separate adjustment on such account was not warranted. 13. That the TPO grossly erred in not appreciating that the \"payment of royalty\" was for a bouquet of support services such as sales and marketing, operations support, claims processing and other services availed from its AE and not towards grant of any IPR's or similar rights, hence not appropriate to benchmark such payments against licenses relating to intellectual properties. 14. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO have erred in not following the binding directions of DRP for exclusion of royalty agreements having related party transaction. 15. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/DRP have erred in not following the principle of consistency by ignoring the fact that similar the international transactions pertaining to royalty have had been undertaken by the Appellant in earlier years and was accepted to be at arm's length with the application of TNMM by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 16. Without prejudice to the above, the AO/ DRP/ TPO have erred in not appreciating that if application of TNMM is accepted in Appellant's case as the most appropriate method, then, challenging/ analyzing individual elements of cost le royalty expense is inconsistent with the tenets of the application of TNMM. Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to INR 7,68,26,193 in respect of the international transactions pertaining to Global Accounts Manager (\"GAM\") expenses. 17. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/DRP have erred in making an upward TP adjustment of INR 7,68,26, 193 in respect of payment of GAM charges, alleging that the same were not at arm's length and erroneously determining the ALP as Nil by applying \"Other Method\" \"CUP Method\", which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules. 18. That the TPO completely erred in not appreciating that the services provided in respect of the Global Account were on a reciprocal basis and based on actual costs incurred, without there being any mark-up. 19. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/ DRP have erred in not appreciating that the Hon'ble Tribunal, in previous years, had upheld that the subject transaction is in the nature of pure re-imbursements, not liable for any deduction of taxes. 20. That the AO/TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that once the GAM expenses stood subsumed in the cost base for the purposes of benchmarking the Logistics segment, a separate adjustment on such account was not warranted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 8 21. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO/TPO/DRP have erred in alleging that the Appellant failed to maintain records to substantiate receipt of GAM services, benefits derived, and costs incurred by the AE, and in characterizing the GAM expenses as duplicative services without appreciating the nature of the transaction and the detailed submissions furnished. Further, erred in considering \"actuarial man-hours\" as the appropriate basis for cost allocation, disregarding the Appellant's explanations and supporting evidence. Corporate tax grounds 22. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not allowing credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 575,342 and tax collected at source amounting to INR 1,270, as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income filed for the captioned assessment year while calculating tax liability in the computation sheet attached to the final order. 23. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 24. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in carrying out computational errors amounting to INR 23,45,220 while arriving at the amount of Total Interest and Fee payable' (Sr. No. 42) in the computation sheet attached to the assessment order. Incorrect levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act 25. That on the facts and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before, or at, the time of hearing of the appeal.” 10. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are not pressed hence, dismissed. 11. Ground of appeal Nos.3 to 6 raised by the assessee that assessee has challenged the TP adjustment of INR 14,11,000/- regarding international transactions pertaining to provision of software development services and in one of the Grounds of appeal, Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 9 the assessee has challenged the action of the AO/TPO in not allowing the benefit of working capital adjustment despite of specific directions given by Ld. DRP. 12. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The claim of the assessee is that AO/TPO has not allowed the working capital adjustment despite of directions given by Ld. DRP where the ld. DRP directed the TPO that adjustment be made for working capital to improve the comparability and further, directed the assessee to provide TPO with reliable and accurate data in each segment to facilitate working capital adjustment. The assessee claimed that it had provided all the relevant data to the TPO/AO in terms of submissions dated 25.07.2024 & 16.07.2024, copy of which are placed at pages 424 onwards. The assessee further claimed that these details were again filed alongwith the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before AO/TPO. However, in the order giving effect, AO/TPO observed that assessee has not provided any data which is contrary to the facts as observed above. Looking to these facts, this issue is restored back to the file of AO/TPO with the directions to provide working capital adjustments for benchmarking the international transactions of software development services after considering the details and data provided by the assessee as stated above. With these directions, Grounds of appeal Nos. 3 to 6 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 10 13. Ground of appeal Nos.7 to 22 raised by the assessee are with respect to transfer pricing adjustment towards sale of logistic service of INR 58,57,09,000/-, on account of Royalty paid of INR 17,64,25,299/- and towards Global Accounts Manager (“GAM”) expenses of INR 5,80,64,686/-. Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has benchmarked its logistics segment by adopting by combined approach under TNMM where the total operating cost includes the expenses incurred towards payment of Royalty as well as GAM charges paid. Ld.AR submits that TPO while determining the ALP of logistics services, had taken the combined approach and not allowed working capital adjustments and further included four new comparables and excluded three comparable selected by the assessee for benchmarking the transactions. Ld.AR submits that besides this, AO/TPO has separately worked out the transfer pricing adjustment on account of Royalty as well as GAM charged paid by using CUP method for Royalty and other method for GAM. Ld.AR submits that DRP though allowed the working capital adjustments however, confirmed the segregation of Royalty payment and GAM charges paid and separate benching for determination for their ALP, however, at the same time has accepted the combined approach taken by the assessee to determine the ALP of logistic services. Ld.AR submits that in the order giving effect, AO/TPO has not given the working capital adjustment and further separately benchmarked worked out the transfer pricing adjustment for Royalty as well as for GAM charges paid. Ld. AR submits that under identical circumstances in the case of Hi-Lex India Pvt.Ltd. vs Assessment Unit vide order dated 28.11.2025 in ITA No.4288/Del/2024 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 11 [Assessment Year 2020-21], the Co-ordinate Bench has held that once the combined approach has been accepted, no further adjustment could be made separately for Royalty paid. He prayed accordingly. 14. On the other hand, ld. CIT DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that Royalty is a separate transaction and therefore should be benchmarked separately. Likewise GAM expenses is also a separate transaction therefore, AO has rightly made segregation of the same and he requested for the confirmation of the approach adopted by AO/TPO. Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue further placed reliance on para 11.5 of the order of ld. DRP wherein ld. DRP has held that Royalty transactions need to be separately benchmarked and further uphold CUP method as against TNMM method applied by the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT DR requested for the confirmation of the action of AO/TPO in this regard. 15. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. For the determination of ALP of sale of logistic service, the TPO has accepted the filters applied by the assessee and also the method applied as TNMM as per which OP/OC was computed at 5.93%. The TPO further include three new filters and out of Eleven comparables selected by assessee, accepted total Seven comparables and rejected remaining Four comparables. Besides this, TPO has also included three new comparables and accordingly, final set of Ten comparables was considered and Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 12 computed the mean margin at 10.75% and proposed the adjustment of INR 8496.927 Lakhs. Thereafter, assessee’s objections were considered by the TPO and finally after including Five more comparables and excluding One comparable, total Fourteen comparables were taken as final set of comparables and worked out OP/OC at 13.96% which has resulted into the adjustment of INR 1,46,37,41,000/-. The said adjustment was rectified by the AO at INR 78,08,28,000/- and after the order of DRP, it is reduced to INR 58,57,09,000/-. It is relevant to state herein that operating cost taken is inclusive of Royalty charges and GAM expenses paid by the assessee. Besides this, the AO/TPO has separately computed the ALP for Royality payment where, as against Royalty paid @ 5% by assessee, the TPO has worked out the ALP @ 3% based on CUP method and adjustment of INR 17,64,25,299/- was made which was confirmed by ld. DRP. Besides this, adjustment with respect to GAM expenses paid was also separately benchmarked and adjustment was made at INR 5,80,64,686/- which was also confirmed by ld. DRP. 16. As observed above, TPO has accepted the combined approach adopted by the assessee for working the ALP of sale of logistics services and further determined the ALP separately for Royalty payment as well as for GAM expenses paid. Once the expenses on account of Royalty & GAM expenses have been included in the total operating cost for working out ALP towards sale of logistics services, separate determination of ALP for the cost on account of Royalty and GAM expenses is not permissible. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Hi-Lex India P. Ltd. (supra) under identical Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 13 circumstances by following various judgements of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and Co-ordinate Benches of Tribunal has held that such action is not permissible. The relevant observations of Co-ordinate Bench are reproduced as under:- 12. In our considered opinion, once the combined bench marking approach, whose PLI includes payment of royalty is accepted by the TPO to Arm’s Length, a separate adjustment pertaining to the concerned international transaction ought not to be made to income of the Assessee. 13. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Private Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 213(Delhi) held as under:- “17. As far as the second question is concerned, the TPO accepted TNMM applied by the assessee, as the most appropriate method in respect of all the international transactions including payment of royalty. The TPO. however, disputed application of TNMM as the most appropriate method for the payment of technical assistance fee of Rs. 38,58,80,000 only for which Comparable Uncontrolled Price (\"CUP\") method was sought to be applied. Here, this court concurs with the assessee that having accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate, it was not open to the TPO to subject only one element, ie payment of technical assistance fee, to an entirely different (CUP) method. The adoption of a method as the most appropriate one assures the applicability of one standard or criteria to judge an international transaction by. Each method is a package in itself, as it were, containing the necessary elements that are to be used as filters to judge the soundness of the international transaction in an ALP fixing exercise. If this were to be disturbed, the end result would be distorted and within one ALP determination for a year, two or even five methods can be adopted. This would spell chaos and be detrimental to the interests of both the assessee and the revenue. The second question is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee; the TNMM had to be applied by the TPO/AO in respect of the technical fee payment too.\" 14. The identical ratio has been laid down in plethora of cases relied by the Assessee mentioned as mentioned in previous Para No. 8 of the order. 15. Considering the above facts and circumstances and following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Magneti Marelli Power train India Private Limited (supra) and other Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 14 judicial precedents, we find merit in the Ground No. 1 of the Assessee and accordingly we delete the addition made by the A.O.” 17. As the facts in the case of the assessee are identical, thus, by respectfully following the aforesaid order of the coordinate Delhi bench of tribunal, we hold that no separate ALP adjustment towards Royalty payment and GAM charges paid is to be made once the ALP adjustment for sale of logistics services has been made by accepting the combined approach. 18. Now coming to the issue of not allowing the working capital adjustment, we have already observed that ld. DRP has directed the AO to allow the working capital adjustment which TPO/AO has failed to provide. We have already restored back this issue to the file of AO with the directions to allow working capital adjustment for which all the necessary data has already been filed by the assessee before AO/TPO on various occasions. With these directions, Ground of appeal No. 7 to 22 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 19. In Ground of appeal Nos.23 & 24, assessee has disputed the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act by observing that said donation has been eligible for CSR thus, is not allowable. 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The dispute is whether the same can be allowed as deduction u/s 80G when it is part of CSR expenses. Section Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 15 80G(1) provides that in computing the total income of the assessee, there shall be deduction, in accordance with the provisions of this section, such sum paid by the assessee in the previous year as a donation. Further, section 80G(2) provides a list where deduction is allowed to the assessee for making donations. Section 80G falls in Chapter VIA of the Act, which comes after the computation of gross total income under various heads of income which inter-alia includes the disallowance of CSR expenses as per Explanation 2 of section 37(1). Thus, both section 37(1) and section 80G has different field to play. Further according to section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) and section 80G(2)(a)(iiihl), any contributions made towards Swacha Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund, is not allowable as deduction under section 80G if the same is claimed as CSR expenses. However, section 80G(2)(a) provides deduction for ‘any sums paid by the assessee in the previous year as donations’ thus, except the donations paid to the Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund, all other donations made to the eligible institutions / funds as per section 80G(2) are eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The coordinate bench of ITAT Bangalore in case of First American (India) Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT in ITA No.1762/Bang/2019 vide its order dt. 29.04.2020 has allowed the deduction under Section 80G by making following observations: “15. In our view, expenditure incurred under section 30 to 36 are claimed while computing income under the head, 'Income form Business and Profession\", whereas monies spent under section 80G are claimed while computing \"Total Taxable income\" in the hands of assessee. The point of claim under these provisions are different. 16. Further, intention of legislature is very clear and unambiguous, since expenditure incurred under section 30 to 36 are excluded from Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, they are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is no restriction on an expenditure being claimed under above sections to be exempt, as Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 16 long as it satisfies necessary conditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, \"Income from Business and Profession\". 17. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing \"Total taxable income\". Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments (keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while computing, Income under the head, \"Income form Business and Profession\". The effect of such disallowance would lead to increase in Business income. Thereafter benefit accruing to assessee under Chapter VIA for computing \"Total Taxable Income\" cannot be denied to assessee, subject to fulfilment of necessary conditions therein. 18. We therefore do not agree with arguments advanced by Ld. Sr. DR. 19. In present facts of case, Ld.AR submitted that all payments forming part of CSR does not form part of profit and loss account for computing Income under the head, \"Income from Business and Profession\". It has been submitted that some payments forming part of CSR were claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act, for computing \"Total taxable income\", which has been disallowed by authorities below. In our view, assessee cannot be denied the benefit of claim under Chapter VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income\". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 20. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G of the Act. We also note that authorities below have not verified nature of payments qualifying exemption under section 80G of the Act and quantum of eligibility as per section 80G(1) of the Act.” 21. The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, Delhi Bench in following cases has also expressed the same view: - Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No.1523/Del/2022 (ITAT, Delhi ) - Teradata India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA 1248/Del/2022 (ITAT, Delhi) 22. As per the above discussion and also by respectfully following the aforesaid judgements of various benches of Tribunal, we are of Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 17 the considered view that Explanation 2 inserted in Section 37 is to deny the deduction for CSR expenses incurred by companies as normal business expenditure and the same applies only to the extent business income computed under Chapter IV-D. The said Explanation cannot be extended or imported to CSR contributions which are otherwise eligible for deduction under any other provision or Chapter, to say donations made to a charitable trust registered under Section 80G and if the same is denied merely because such payment forms part of CSR, it would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. Accordingly, we allow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80G of the Act. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 23 & 24 raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. 23. Ground of appeal No.25 raised by the assessee is not allowing the credit of TDS. 24. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee of TDS vis-a-vis income declared on which such TDS is made and decide the issue in accordance with law. 25. Ground of appeal No.26 raised by the assessee is with respect to disallowance of INR 89,72,008/- u/s 43B of the Act. 26. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Before us, Ld.AR submits that adjustment is made in the return processed u/s 143(1) without Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 18 confronting the assessee therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is restored back to the file of AO with the direction to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to make its submissions and decide the issue in accordance with law. With these directions, Ground of appeal No.26 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 27. In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed. 28. Now we take appeal of the assessee in ITA No.4392/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2020-21]. ITA No.4392/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2020-21]. 29. Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 21 are taken with respect to transfer pricing adjustment which are common in assessee’s appeal for AY 2021-22 in ITA No.4392/Del/2024 wherein we have allowed Grounds of appeal with certain directions which are Mutatis Mutandis applied to the facts of this year case also. Thus, by following the same observations, Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 21 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 30. Ground of appeal No.22 raised by the assessee is with respect to not allowing the credit of TDS/TCS for which the matter is restored back to the file of AO with direction to verify the claim vis-a-vis income declared by the assessee and decide in accordance with law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 19 31. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. S.A.No.500/Del/2024 [In ITA No.5501/Del/2024] [Assessment Year : 2021-22] 32. Since we have decided the appeal of the assessee in view of the above, therefore, the captioned stay application filed by the assessee become infructuous and disposed off accordingly. 33. In the final result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 [Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22] are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 06.03.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 4392 & 5501/Del/2024 Page | 20 Printed from counselvise.com "