← All Phrases

“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
71
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
57
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
40
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
25
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
23
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

M/S Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. ITO (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 975/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in ITA No.1427/Del/2015 & 975/Del/2016 pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The core common issue arising for consideration in both the appeals is, whether the amounts received by the assessee from its Indian subsidiary

Netafim Ltd., Gujarat vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1427/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

short ‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in ITA No.1427/Del/2015 & 975/Del/2016 pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The core common issue arising for consideration in both the appeals is, whether the amounts received by the assessee from its Indian subsidiary

Renu Khurana, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int.Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1368/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Renu Khurana, Vs. Acit, H. No. 6480, Sector C-6, Intl. Taxation -2(1)(2), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Bbppk6150E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 48

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2019-20, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The dispute between the parties in the present appeal is in relation to deduction claimed on account of indexed cost of acquisition

Quantum Clothing India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 603/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Fund [PF] during the relevant assessment year 2014-15. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangaluru [DRP]. Before the Ld. DRP the assessee raised various objections particularly on the rejection of the TP Documentation and selection of comparables ... Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2. Circle-5(1), 2nd Floor, Direct Taxes Building, MVP Double Road, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530017. 3. The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Kendriyasadan, 4th Floor, C-Wing, Bengaluru-560034. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. (ii) Deputy Commissioner of Income

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 473/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Smt. SuvibhaNolkha, CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

corporate guarantee charges @ 1.60% on Rs. 61,10,82,000/- which worked out to Rs. 97,77,312/-. On appeal, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] upheld the decision of the Ld. TPO while making the TP adjustment. Thus, the Ld. AO giving effect to the directions ... Commissioner of Income Tax, 2. Circle-1, KKS Towers, RR Pet, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh-534002. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (ii) Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru. आयकरआयु"त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. (ii) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing Officer)-2, Hyderabad. "वभागीय

Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani & Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani, Rajkot vs. The Chief CIT, TDS, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

ITA 23/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(a)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220

under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

Smt. Bhavnaben Shitalbhai Ravani, Rajkot vs. The ITO(TDS-2), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the applicants are dismissed

ITA 22/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Same Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order.

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 119(2)(a)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220

under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment having been completed on the basis of directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering the factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order ... income at Rs. 4896,58,43,555/-. Aggrieved against it the assessee company filed its objections against the draft assessment order before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-III, New Delhi who issued certain directions on 08.01.2015 u/s 144C(5) of the Act with regard to transfer pricing adjustments. In pursuance

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment having been completed on the basis of directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering the factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order ... income at Rs. 4896,58,43,555/-. Aggrieved against it the assessee company filed its objections against the draft assessment order before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-III, New Delhi who issued certain directions on 08.01.2015 u/s 144C(5) of the Act with regard to transfer pricing adjustments. In pursuance

Bmw India Financial Services P.Ltd, Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 562/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 478/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 562/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Bmw India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, Building No. 11, The Oberoi Circle-10(1), Corporate Tower, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb8986G Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 43Section 92C

478/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble DRP’), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’) and the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Assessing Officer ITA Nos. 478 & 562/Del/2022 ... 562/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble DRP), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’) and the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Assessing Officer (hereinafter collectively to be referred

Bmw India Financial Services Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 478/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 478/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 562/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Bmw India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, Building No. 11, The Oberoi Circle-10(1), Corporate Tower, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb8986G Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 43Section 92C

478/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble DRP’), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’) and the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Assessing Officer ITA Nos. 478 & 562/Del/2022 ... 562/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble DRP), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’) and the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Assessing Officer (hereinafter collectively to be referred

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 888/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

proposing Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.1,63,04,12,982/-. The assessee filed objection in response to the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’ for short) and the DRP vide order dated 18/12/2013 disposed off the objection by confirming the additions proposed in the draft assessment order

Umw Sher (L) Limited, New Delhi vs. Assesising Officer, International Taxation Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 570/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2017-18, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). ITA Nos.569 & 570/Del/2021 AY: 2012-13 & 2017-18 2. The short issue arising for consideration in these appeals is, whether the receipts from

Umw Sher (L) Limited, New Delhi vs. Assesising Officer, International Taxation Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 569/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2017-18, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). ITA Nos.569 & 570/Del/2021 AY: 2012-13 & 2017-18 2. The short issue arising for consideration in these appeals is, whether the receipts from

Intelsat Us Llc, Delhi vs. ACIT, 2(1)(1) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1942/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20 Intelsat Us Llc, Vs. Acit, C/O- Intelsat India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-2(1)(1), International Unit 1B, First Floor, Aria Taxation, Signature Towers, Hotel J.W. Delhi Marriott, Aerocity, New Delhi Pan :Aadcp6533D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2019-20, in pursuance to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2019-20 2. The substantial issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is, whether the receipt from Satellite Transmission Services

Oxbow Energy Solutions Llc, Usa vs. DCIT International Taxation - 2(2)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 574/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 69A

section 144C of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, in pursuance to direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2012-13 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of amount of Rs.26,56,35,337/- purportedly under

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dc/Ac 4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 152/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Darpan Kirpalani CAFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

draft assessment order on 29/11/2019. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (Ld. DRP). The Ld. Authorized Representative made various submissions before the Ld. DRP 4 with respect to the comparables selected ... contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel erred in not appreciating that the order of the Ld. JCIT (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad passed under section 92CA of the Act is contrary to law and thus liable

Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited, Kakinada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/VIZ/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.3-16-193/1, Sri Vidya Colony Circle-1 Suryarao Peta, Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aabcl9766C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao/Tpo/Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru(Drp In Short) U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical, Both The Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Off In A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & The Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 For The A.Y.2012-13. 2 Ita No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021, A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Lewek Altair Shipping Private Ltd., Kakinada

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited, Kakinada vs. Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 146/VIZ/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.3-16-193/1, Sri Vidya Colony Circle-1 Suryarao Peta, Kakinada Kakinada [Pan : Aabcl9766C] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri S.Balakrishnan: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ao/Tpo/Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru(Drp In Short) U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since The Facts Are Identical, Both The Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Off In A Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & The Facts Are Extracted From I.T.A.No.146/Viz/2021 For The A.Y.2012-13. 2 Ita No.146/Viz/2021 & 147/Viz/2021, A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 Lewek Altair Shipping Private Ltd., Kakinada

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

Alcatel Lucent India Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 15, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ankul Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

r.w.s. 2 ITA No.366/Del./2022 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... length price ('ALP'). 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO / Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon'ble DRP') has erred, in making an adjustment of INR 12,23,72,160 in relation to notional interest on overdue receivables from