“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

same was served on the assessee and the assessee vide letter dated 11.05.2021 submitted that assessee would not file objection before Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C and requested the Assessing Officer to pass the final Assessment Order. Accordingly, final Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2425/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)

RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against different directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (DRP-3), Mumbai-2 [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP”] dated 21.06.2022 for the A.Ys. 2018-19 and 2019-20, passed u/s. 144C(5) of Income ... International Taxation, Mumbai ("the learned Assessing Officer" or the "the learned AO") passed pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel- 3 Mumbai ("the learned Panel" or "the learned DRP") is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to Ground

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2424/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Co, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 1022/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blerga International Reinsurance V. Dcit (International Taxation) -4(1)(1) Room No. 172, 17Th Floor Company Designated Activity Air India Building, Nariman Point Company Mumbai – 400 021 C/O. S.R.B.C & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aadcr1226K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.S. Paridiwala & Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala Department Represented By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

permanent establishment case of the Assessing Officer, as put to the assessee in the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee does not have any place of business operations in India and that the assessee does ... taxmann.com 228 (Del)] and DITV s Galileo International Inc [(2009) 336 ITR 264 (Del)]. None of these submissions, however, impressed the Dispute Resolution Panel which confirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer by observing as follows: “6.1 We have considered the facts of the case, the written submissions and arguments

Expeditors International of Washington, Usa vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1 That on the facts

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 747/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Modi; A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 012. Assessee filed objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel which issued direction and accordingly, the order under Section 144 read with section 144C (13) read with section 153C of the Act was passed ... 19th October, 2022 determining the total income of ₹1,14,76,500/-. 013. Before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel assessee sent email on 25th January, 2022 in the form of objection in form no.35A. On 29th January, 2022, assessee submitted revised objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. On 19th

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 746/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 745/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2023[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 743/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 742/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Kongsberg Maritime Cm India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addll/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO-NFAC, Delhi

ITA 336/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") Ld Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO") based on directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has: General Ground 1. erred by making adjustment/ disallowances of INR 3,21,74,747 to the total income filed the Appellant Transfer Pricing

Bhagwati Suresh Modi, Palanpur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all fourteen appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3075/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishor R. Gheewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153(3)Section 153CSection 69

Elsevier Ltd, Gurgoan vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2351/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

read with section 144C(13) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2 ITA No.2351/Del./2022 2. The core issue arising in the appeal is whether the amount has been received by the assessee from

Elsevier Inc, New York vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2350/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

read with section 144C(13) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2 ITA No.2350/Del./2022 2. The core issue arising in the appeal is whether the amount received by the assessee from Indian customers

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S M.Pallonji Shipping Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue. The cross objections filed by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 2981/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 57Section 92C

spread cannot be less than 4%. Thus, the spread adopted by the TPO of approximately 5% is reasonable. Further, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel for Assessment Year 2013-14 has vide Order passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 30.06.2017 has upheld the spread of 5% adopted

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

draft assessment order was passed on 30.12.2018. 15. The respondent/assessee had filed its objections qua the same, which were disposed of by the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] via order dated 20.09.2019. 16. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 15.10.2019, under Section 147/144

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2814/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Lord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta

Section 40

total income was assessed at Rs.26,98,35,560/-. 3. Thereafter the assessee has filed objection against the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai. The DRP vide direction u/s 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.10.2015 has upheld the adjustment made ... assessed at ₹ 141,821,938/– and transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 69,416,669/- was made. 013. Assessee preferred an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel – I, Mumbai [ the Ld DRP] who passed direction on 05/9/2017 and rejected the objections of the assessee. Consequently, on 27/10/2017, the learned assessing officer passed

Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, National Informatics Center, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

erred in proposing an adjustment of Rs. 24,94,76,749/- to the total income of the Assessee even though Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) held that there is no transfer pricing adjustment warranted since assessee has not claimed any deduction under section 80-IA of the Income ... erred in proposing an adjustment of Rs. 24,94,76,749/- to the total income of the assessee even though Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) held that there is no transfer pricing adjustment warranted since assessee has not claimed any deduction under section 80-IA of the Income