Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153, Section 144C, Section 144C(13), Section 153(2A), Section 153(3), Section 92CA.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.?

269 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537), spanning 2022 to 2026.

445 ITR 537High Court2022#298 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. authority for?

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

269

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 368,149 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. · Section 153 · Section 144C · final assessment order · limitation period · Dispute Resolution Panel · DRP directions · Section 153(2A) · Section 144C(13) · transfer pricing assessment · time limit for assessment

Also reported as

140 Taxmann.com 304

Sections most often in play

Section 153 Section 144C Section 144C(13)Section 153(2A)Section 153(3)Section 92CA Section 143(3)Section 144C(12)

Issues it is cited on

section 144c(12)section 153(2a)objections before drp section 144c(4)reference to tpo impermissible avoidance arrangement eligible assessee section 153(4)arms length price section 141 section 144c(1)section 262

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2008/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254

…aw, and barred by limitation under Section 153 of the Act, and hence liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 ITR 537 (Madras) [09-06-2022). 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the DRP are invalid, non-est, and bad in law, as they were issued without a Document Identification Number ("DIN"), in clear violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. Hence, the DRP's directions, as well as the con…

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2007/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 254

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

…sessment order dated 15.07.2025 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act is unlawful and without jurisdiction as the same is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 ITR 537 (Madras) as well as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 457 ITR 161 3 ITA 5159/Mum/2025 Zarah Rafique Malik (Bombay). Hence, the said assessment order is invalid, unsustainable and deserves to be quashed.” 5. Out of the above additional grounds, ld. Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, has su…

Posco India Processing Center Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO), Circle 3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.6022/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) Posco India Processing Centre P. Ltd., Unit No.512, 5Th Floor, Tower-A, Park Centra Building, Sector-30, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aafcp-0211-N बिाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Circle 3(1), Area Code-Nwr, Ao Type-C, Range Code-107, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Ao Number-1, Gurgaon, Haryana122016 आअसं.5454/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) Intertek India P. Ltd., E-20 Block B-1, Mathura Road, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Area, New Delhi 110044 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaaci-6890-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 10(1), Delhi Sa No.348/Del/2025 In Ita No. 5454/Del/2024(A.Y 2021-22) Intertek India P. Ltd., E-20 Block B-1, Mathura Road, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Area, New Delhi 110044 ...... आवेदक/Applicant Pan: Aaaci-6890-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 10(1), Delhi

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

Posco India Processing Center Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO), Circle 3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

Groupe Seb India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Delhi

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Federal-Mogul Ignition Products India Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Range - 40, Delhi

Taboola India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi

Renew Wind Energy (Mp Two) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi

Renew Solar Energy (Tn) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 19(1), Delhi

Louis Dreyfus Company India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 13(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Athena Karnal Solar Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

Athena Bhiwadi Solar Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Circle 1(1) Gurgoan, Gurgaon, Haryana

Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Voith Hydro P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

Signify Innovations India Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), Delhi

Stanford Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

Tbo Tek Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi