"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Įी ͪवजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं Įी मधुसूदन सावͫडया, लेखा सदè य क े सम¢ । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stay Application No.26/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA No.496/Hyd/2022 - Assessment Year - 2018-2019 InterWrap Corp Private Limited [Successor of Owens Corning Industries (India) Private Limited], MUMBAI. PIN – 400 076. Maharashtra. PAN AADCI3190B vs. The DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Sri SP Chidambaram, Advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by:: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : By way of this stay application, the assessee is seeking for stay against the recovery of the outstanding demand arising from assessment order passed Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA.No.26/Hyd./2025 u/sec.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short \"the Act\"], in pursuance to the Directions of the Disputes Resolution Panel-1 [in short “DRP”], Bengaluru resulting additions on account of adjustment proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer [in short “TPO”] for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. The assessee has challenged the validity of the Directions of the DRP for want of a valid DIN and this issue is now pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is pending adjudication before the Tribunal since 2022 and due to the issue of DIN hearing of the appeal was adjourned awaiting the outcome of the petition pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the same issue. 3. The learned AR of the Assessee submitted that the TPO has proposed the adjustment by taking the entire transactions of the assessee instead of international transactions and, therefore, resulting the demand of Rs.25,03,59,840/-. He has pointed-out that the adjustment made by the TPO of Rs.47,92,29,000/- is twice of the value Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA.No.26/Hyd./2025 of the international transactions i.e., Rs.21,98,00,000/-. He further submitted that the TPO while computing the operating profit of the assessee has not excluded the extraordinary expenses aggregating to Rs.3.9 crores on account of VRS to the contract labours due to closure of the plant and further, the provision of bad and doubtful debts is also considered by the TPO as operating expenses. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that if all these issues are taken into consideration, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted and there will be no demand. Further the assessee has already paid a sum of Rs.2,23,66,378/- out of the total demand of Rs.25,03,59,840/-. The learned AR of the Assessee has stated that the assessee is ready to pay the balance amount to make the payment to 20% of the total demand. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the recovery of the outstanding demand may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal of the assessee. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the stay of the recovery of the demand and submitted that Printed from counselvise.com 4 SA.No.26/Hyd./2025 the appeal of the assessee is pending adjudication for last more than three years. He further submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be taken-up for hearing on ‘out of turn’ and can be decided without granting the stay to the assessee. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the material on record. As it is already stated that the hearing of the appeal could not be concluded due to the issue of validity of the DRP directions for want of a valid DIN which was not generated at the time of passing the Directions and only mentioned in the handwriting. Thus, due to this, issue of validity of the Directions of the DRP for want of a valid DIN is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the hearing of the appeal could not be concluded. Further the issue raised by the assessee on merits of the addition prima facie makes-out an arguable case in the appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to stay the balance outstanding demand, subject to payment of the 20% of the total demand on or before 31.10.2025. The Printed from counselvise.com 5 SA.No.26/Hyd./2025 assessee has already paid a sum of Rs.2,23,66,378/-. Therefore, the assessee is directed to make the balance demand on or before 31.10.2025 to make it 20% of the total demand in the case. Subject to the above payment, the balance demand is stayed for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The appeal of the assessee is directed to be listed in the category of ‘stay granted matters’ and parties are directed not to take any adjournment of hearing already fixed on 03.12.2025. 6. In the result, stay application SA.No.26/Hyd./2025 of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of the hearing i.e., on 17th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Hyderabad, Dated 17th October, 2025 VBP Copy to : 1. InterWrap Corp Private Limited [Successor of Owens Corning Industries (India) Private Limited, 7th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandini Gardens, Powai, MUMBAI. PIN – 400 076. Maharashtra. 2. The DCIT, Circle-5(1), IT Tower, Hyderabad – 500 004. 3. The Disputes Resolution Panel-1, Kendriya Sadan, 4th Floor, C-Wing, BENGALURU – 560 034. 4. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True copy// Printed from counselvise.com "