“dispute resolution panel”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C2,746 judgments

The decision most relied on for dispute resolution panel is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537), cited in 269 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on dispute resolution panel

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

445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court

269

citing judgments

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).

Shelf Drilling 4. In ACIT (International Taxation) v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd.

177 Taxmann.com 262 · 2025 · Supreme Court

216

citing judgments

The Supreme Court has not reached a majority verdict on whether the time spent in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) proceedings under Section 144C should be included within the overall limitation period prescribed by Section 153(3). Consequently, the legal position on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 remains unresolved at the Supreme Court level.

Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT\n(Intl. Taxation)

153 Taxmann.com 162 · 2023 · High Court

169

citing judgments

The time consumed in proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C must be subsumed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 for the completion of assessment, meaning these timelines are not mutually exclusive.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India

388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel-2

127 Taxmann.com 332 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

A High Court decision is binding on subordinate authorities like the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer erred in not following a prior jurisdictional High Court ruling and a Madras High Court ruling.

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Ors.

361 ITR 531 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are a continuation of the assessment proceedings, not an appeal. The DRP's role is to act as a correcting mechanism, providing a second review of the proposed assessment order.

CIT v. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd.

77 Taxmann.com 326 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee can withdraw a company from the list of comparables if it was inadvertently included and is not genuinely comparable.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT(Appeals)

338 ITR 482 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

The deletion of a disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is upheld when relied upon by other judgments.

Judgments citing dispute resolution panel

Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - Ltu-1, Mumbai

ITA 2779/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92CSection 93C

filed by the learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU)-1, Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai (learned DRP) dated 30th December, 2015 and Cross Objection No.33/Mum/2017 is filed by assessee. ITA No.2779/Mum/2016 is filed by the assessee against the assessment ... total income of the assessee as per normal computation of ₹636,23,59,083/-. The assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel issued directions under Section 144C (5) of the Act, on 30th December, 2015. Based on these directions

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

assessing the income at Rs.27,39,13,236/- assessment vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dated 26.07.2022, in pursuance of directions of Dispute Resolution Panel dated 29.06.2022, and the amount of Rs. 4,57,32,318/- paid to ZYLO international has been wrongly treated as bogus expenditure ... making the addition of Rs. 17,77,26,000/- received on account of sale/transfer of RECs/ESCs, in pursuance of directions of Dispute Resolution Panel dated 29.06.2022, while recording the finding that the claim of the assessee u/s 115BBG is being rejected despite the fact that the claim made

Nuovo Pignone International Srl, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 999/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 Nuovo Pignone International Versus Dcit, Circle 2(2)(2), Srl, 6Th Floor, Building No. 7A, International Taxation, Standard Chartered Building, New Delhi Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabcg3212A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2 2. The major issue arising for consideration is, whether the assessee has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Rest of the issues

Globeground India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1072/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2010-11, in pursuance to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2010-11 2. Basically the dispute in the present appeal is confined to the addition made of Rs.2,22,73,117/- on account

Smit Singapore Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 816/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal a/w Ms. Miti ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chandip Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 27/12/2022, issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel- 2, Mumbai [“learned DRP”], under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2020–21. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following

Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2531/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Asst. Commissioner Of Income Private Limited 203 204, 2 N D Floor Tax Vs. Delphi A Wing, Central Avenue, Circle 15(2)(2) Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai Mumbai-400 076 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccj7808G

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43A

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 1 ('learned DRP) on the following grounds: 1. Erred in making an adjustment in respect of reimbursement of expenses 1.1 The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ... learned assessing officer made the above two adjustment to the book loss declared by the assessee. 010. Assessee preferred objection before the learned dispute resolution panel wherein the directions were issued on 27/6/2022 i. rejecting the objections against the transfer pricing adjustment holding that assessee did not provide any primary

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Int.Tax. Circle-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1766/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Pattnaik, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 263Section 44B

under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') and the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP) is contrary to the provisions of law and erroneous on the facts of the case and hence liable to be quashed. 2. That

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5Section 9Section 92C(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2017-18, as per directions issued by CIT (Dispute Resolution Panel-2), Mumbai-3 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’] under Section 144C(5) of the Act. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4564/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue by placing reliance upon the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel for the assessment year 2012-13. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3645/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Jiostar India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

ITA 7872/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal (V.P.), Shri Aby T. Varkey (J.M.) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (A.M.) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.7872/Mum/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 255(3)

transaction, the TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.669.36 crore for the immediately preceding year. No succor was provided by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which culminated into making transfer pricing addition of the equal amount in the final assessment order passed

Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and

ITA 7961/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Burman, CIT DR

Section 144CSection 92C

These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders of Assessing Officer passed pursuant to the directions of the ld. CIT (A)/ Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the concerned assessment years. 2. The grounds of appeal in both the assessments years taken by the assessee read as under ... income of the Appellant under the normal provisions of the Act at INR 270,517,350 in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"), as against the returned income of INR 40,245,490 returned. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and

ITA 7960/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.D. Burman, CIT DR

Section 144CSection 92C

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO*) and the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP") erred in making an adjustment of INR 13,15,77,403 under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (cthe ... authorized representative clearly shows that assessee has maintained a reasonably sound documentation of intra group services. The learned transfer pricing officer and learned dispute resolution panel has heavily relied on their findings in the earlier years which have already been negated by the ITAT. We are not in agreement with

DCIT -5(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 33/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Shekhar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy

Firefly Market Research India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 934/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, D.R

Section 153(4)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

assessee’) by filing present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, (Dispute Resolution Panel-1), 2 M/s. Firefly Market Research India Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(DRP)] qua the assessment year 2016-17 on the grounds inter ... case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the learned Assessing Officer (AO) under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) ered in making an adjustment of Rs. 14,163,877 (comprising of support services availed of INR 6,751,261 and allocation

Transporter Industry Internatinal Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT International Taxation, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1240/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

For Appellant: Shri Nikil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. AR)

Section 153Section 3Section 92Section 92C

Mumbai r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 25.04.2021 pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground no. 1 is general in nature, so dismissed. 3. Ground no. 3 is a legal issue which has been raised

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is a In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. Assessing Officer’] for assessment year 2015-16 pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 28.09.2019, which was further rectified on 06.12.2019. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Thomas ... Cook (India) Ltd. 2 ITA No. No. 7807/M/2019 1. The Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (DR) 1. The Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (DR) 1. The Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel (DR) erred in The Id. A0 erred in disallowing Rs erred in The Id. A0 erred in disallowing

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avana Integrated Systems Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5743/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Avana Integrated 1(1)(1), Systems Ltd., Room No.579, Vs. Bombay House, Aayakar Bhavan, 24, Homi Mody Street, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadct 1062F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, Sr. A.R

Section 144C(13)Section 153(1)

Member: For the sake of brevity aforesaid appeal and cross objections emanated from same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Dispute Resolution Panel-1), Mumbai [hereinafter 2 CO No.37/M/2016 M/s. Avana Integrated Systems Ltd. referred to as the Ld. DRP] are being taken up for disposal ... this case, wherein, the direction is given to make adjustment to assessee's profit margin." CO No.37/M/2016 (Grounds of Assessee): “The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRPYLearned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)Learned Assessing Officer (AO), respectively and as the case may be, in the facts and circumstances of the case

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1924/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Percy J PardiwallaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

fats and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer, relying on the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel – III, Mumbai [“DRP”], erred in making addition of Rs. 2,72,430/- by way of adjustment to the transfer price of the international transaction entered