“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

Bridgestone India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre Delh, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed,

ITA 1081/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bridgestone India P.Ltd Plot No-A-43, Phase-Ii, Midc Addl/Jt/Dy/Cit/Ito, National E- Chakan, Village Sawardari, Assessment Centre Vs. Taluka Khed, Delhi-110 003 Pune-410501 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabcb2304E Assessee By : Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Adv Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 42(1)Section 43(1)

passed in pursuance of the order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer, Ahmadabad (the learned TPO) subject to direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel CIT (DRP – 2), Mumbai – 1 (the learned DRP). 02. The only dispute in this appeal is addition of ₹ 332,287,820/– ( net of depreciation) in respect ... addition of ₹ 470,341,836 as income of the assessee. The draft assessment order was passed on 11/12/2019. On objection before the learned dispute resolution panel, the directions were given that in assessment year 2015 – 16 the learned dispute resolution panel rejected the claim of the assessee with respect

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2152/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2152/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Office Income Tax- 4(1)(2) Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, Room No. 1712 17Th Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Floor, Air India Building Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400064. 400021 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. M.P. Lohia A/W Pranay Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Dated Nil Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction Dated 23.12.2016. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee/Tipo Is A Project Office/Pe Of M/S. Tecnimont Spa (Tcm), A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy Which Is Engaged In Engineering & Construction World-Wide In Section Of Chemical, Petro-Chemical Oil & Gas, Energy Etc; According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee/Tipo Has Been Awarded Inter-Alia Turnkey Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. & The Assessee/Tipo

For Appellant: Shri. M.P. Lohia a/w PranayFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

assessee brought to our notice that the only issue is regarding the Transfer Pricing Adjustment made by the AO pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) direction dated 23.12.2016. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee/TIPO is a project office/PE of M/s. Tecnimont SPA (TCM), a Foreign Company incorporated

Gebr.Pfeiffer Se, Germany vs. CIT(Drp-1), Mumbai 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 54/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhgebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Acit, Circle 2(3)(2) Barbarossastr 50-54, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Kaiserlautern, Germany India Building, 676550 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent Gebr Pfeiffer Se Vs. Cit(Drp-1) Barbarossastr 50-54, Income Tax Department Kaiserlautern, Germany Mumbai -3 676550 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecg9980A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Salil Aggarwal &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

GEBR PFEIFFER Se Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(3)(2) 3. Against the draft assessment order the assessee has raised the objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The ground of object raised by the assessee are as under: “3. The addition proposed by the Learned Assessing Officer (The Asstt. Commissioner

Gebr.Pfeiffer Se, Germany vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1507/MUM/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Salil Aggarwal &For Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Omni Active Health Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 748/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 14ASection 35Section 5Section 92C

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per directions, dated 28/01/2022, issued by the CIT (Dispute Resolution Panel-2), Mumbai-2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’) under Section ITA. No. 748/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 144C(5) of the Act pertaining

Ciba India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234DSection 244ASection 40Section 43B

while passing the order under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) dated 24 December, 2013 in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (hereinafter referred to as the DRP) dated 28 October2013 erred in upholding the disallowance of Rsoverline 65 made under section

Fcc Co. Ltd, Japan vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above and stay

ITA 766/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

with section 144C(13) of the Income-Tax Act,1961 pertaining to assessment year 2020-21, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. In the present appeal, we have been called upon to decide whether the assessee had a Permanent Establishment (PE) either

Macrotech Developers Ltd.(Successor to Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2266/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai ("Ld. AO'), the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing- 3(2)(1), Mumbai, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: 1.1. not appreciating that explanation to section 92B of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2012 does not alter the basic ... Accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed on 25 September 2021. 010. Assessee preferred the objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, who passed its direction on 29 June 2022. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel i. Rejected objections no.1 of the assessee holding it to be general in nature

Macrotech Developrs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 928Section 92B

Gayatri Kapur Chadda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2286/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

read with 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 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, inter alia, challenging the validity of the impugned assessment order being wholly without jurisdiction, however

M/S. Tcim Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1962/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 112(1)Section 143(3)Section 234

read with 144C(13) of 2 the Income-Tax Act,1961for the assessment year 2013-14 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. When the appeal was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even, there is no application seeking adjournment

Sage International Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 90

assessee regarding foreign tax credit amounting to INR 28,73,223/- was rejected. Against this, the assessee filed its objection before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). Ld.DRP also did not accept the objections of the assessee and rejected the claim of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO passed the impugned assessment

Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 831/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kuamr U.S

Section 92C

Appellant under the normal provisions of the Act at INR 1,45,83,61,480, in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"), as against the returned income of INR 75,52,83,580. 2 S.A No. 82/Del/2022 Avery Dennison (India) Vs. ACIT 2. That

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 319/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

jurisdiction and is bad in law. 2. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated December 22, 2015 is without jurisdiction and is bad in law. The directions passed by the DRP are in violation of section ... made for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per Rule 8D. The assessee filed objection against the draft Assessment Oder. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) passed order under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 22.12.2015 directing the Assessing Officer to modify the Assessment Order

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 4767/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumar, Accountant Membr Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 144CSection 254Section 260ASection 36(1)(ii)

dated 25.05.2017 passed under Section 254/143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2 ITA No. 4767/Del./2017 2. Before we proceed to deal with the specific issues arising before us out of the present appeal

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1877/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1877/Del/2022 (A.Y 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Anshuman Pattnaik

Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

following grounds of appeal:- “Ground No. 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('the Hon'ble DRP') has erred in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi ... following grounds of appeal:- “Ground No. 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (the Hon'ble DRP") has erred in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi

Relx Inc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1876/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1877/Del/2022 (A.Y 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Anshuman Pattnaik

Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

Fraport Ag Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 287/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Vs. Acit/Adit, Airport Services Worldwide, International Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., Cas, Circle-1(2), 1-D, Vandhna Building, New Delhi 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacf9749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 9(1)(vii)

filed by the same assessee. One of the appeals arises out of final assessment order passed in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Whereas, rest of the appeals arise out of separate orders passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals relate to assessment years