Tricentis Gmbh, 10 Leonard Circle International Tax Bernstein Strasse Saturn 3(1)(1), Tower, Vienna, New Delhi Austria PAN :AAECT9861B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate Sh. Ketan Ved, CA Department by Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 08.10.2024 Date of pronouncement 06.11.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICEPRESIDENT Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 144(C)(13) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') pertaining to assessment years 202021 and 202122, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). ITA Nos.2705 & 3526/Del/2023 2. Grounds raised in both the appeals are more or less identical, except variation in figures. Ground No. 1, being a general ground, does not require adjudication. In ground no. 2 of both the appeals the assessee has challenged validity of the assessment orders. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a foreign company, as per the definition provided under the Act. He submitted, as per notification F. No. 187/3/2020ITA1, dated 31st March, 2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), assessment proceedings for a foreign company cannot fall within the purview of faceless assessment scheme prescribed under section 144B of the Act. Whereas, he submitted, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by National Faceless Assessment Centre. Thus, he submitted, in terms with CBDT Notification, on the date of issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, National Faceless Assessment Centre did not have jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceedings. Thus, he submitted, the assessment orders passed in pursuance to an invalid notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, are equally invalid, hence, deserve to be 2|Page ITA Nos.2705 & 3526/Del/2023 quashed. However, he fairly submitted that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Adarsh Developers Vs. DCIT, [2024]158 taxmann.com 81 (Karnataka) has taken a view against the assessee. 4. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is no lack of authority/jurisdiction on the part of National Faceless Assessment Centre in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In support, he relied upon Notification No. F. No. 225/91/2022/ITAII, dated 28.05.2022. Thus, he submitted, assessee's submission does not merit consideration. 5. Having considered rival submissions, we find, the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of Adarsh Developers Vs. DCIT (supra). No other contrary decision was brought to our notice by either of the parties. Since, above mentioned decision is the only decision of High Court available before us, respectfully following the ratio laid down therein, we hold that the impugned assessment orders are valid. Accordingly, ground no. 2 in both the appeals are dismissed. 3|Page ITA Nos.2705 & 3526/Del/2023 6. In ground nos.3 to 10 in ITA No. 2705/Del/2023 and ground nos.3 to 11 of ITA No.3526/Del/2023, the assessee has challenged the taxability of income earned from sale of software license as business income. 7. Briefly the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a nonresident corporate entity incorporated in Austria and a tax resident of Austria. As stated by the Departmental Authorities, the assessee is engaged in the business of providing software quality assurance solutions by selling licenses of its testing software, such as, Tosca, Flood, qTest etc. to various customers across the world, including India. In the assessment years under dispute, the assessee had earned income from third party customers in India for providing End User Licences (EULS) of its testing software and also from provision of support and consultancy services. In the re