" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI, BENCH: I BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. KRINWANT SAHAY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stay Application No.511/Del/2025 (ITA No. 336/DEL/2022) िनधाŊरणवषŊ/Asstt. Years:2010-11 Canon India Private Limited 7th Floor, Building No.5, Tower-B DLF Cyber City, DLF-III, Gurugra- 122002 Vs. DCIT (TP)-1(2)(1) New Delhi (अपीलाथŎApplicant) (ŮȑथŎRespondent) Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAACC4175D िनधाŊįरतीȪारा/Assessee represented by: Sh. Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate Sh. Jainender Singh Kataria, Advocate राज̾ वȪारा/Revenue represented by: Sh. M.V. Ramesh, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 24.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 24.07.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 आदेश / ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM The stay application in this case has been filed by the assessee stating as under :- “2. In the present year, demand of INR 1,46,00,186 (on page 77 of the application) is arising out of the final assessment order dated 28 January 2022. It is submitted that the entire demand is attributable to non-grant of brought forward losses of INR 19,25,44,952 (returned losses for AY 2009-10). In AY 2009-10, the AO has erroneously set-off the aforesaid loss against a protective adjustment. This is an error apparent on the face of the record as the assessment order itself states that the protective adjustment addition will not result in any tax demand. 3. A rectification application dated 12 May 2021 has already been filed by the Applicant before the Ld. AO for AY 2009-10. In the said application, the Applicant has, inter alia, submitted that the protective addition could not have been incorporated while computing the income, as the same has effectively resulted in crystallisation of an enforceable demand, including demand arising on account of the protective addition, which is impermissible in law. The said rectification application is still pending disposal before the Ld. AD 4. If benefit of brought forward losses is granted, entire adjustment in AY 2010-11 will stand deleted and rather, the Applicant would be due refund of INR 9,50,16,880/-“ 2. During proceedings before us as directed by the Bench the ld. DR filed an order passed u/s.154/254 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 20.04.2026. In fact the assessee’s stay application is for A.Y.2020- 21 stating that in case the returned loss for A.Y.2009-10 is Printed from counselvise.com 3 correctly brought on record then the carry forward of losses will get adjusted in further years. 3. The Ld. DR has filed a copy of the rectification order for A.Y.2010-11 while as per application of the assessee the correction is required in A.Y.2009-10. Accordingly, the DR is directed to file rectification order for A.Y.2009-10 by 31.07.2026. Meanwhile the stay if granted for the period of 180 days or till the disposal of the stay application whichever is earlier. The case has been re-fixed for hearing on 31.07.2026. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (KRINWANT SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBR Dated : 24/07/2026 *Neha Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "