“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

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(4), Mumbai

In the result assessment order dated 30

ITA 2142/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2142/मुं/ 2021 (िन.व. 2015-16) M/S. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Wagle Estate P.O., Lbs Marg Thane 400604 Pan: Aaocs7144Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(4) World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Shri Hiten Chande "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vinod Tanwani सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2022 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits At The Outset That He Would Be Making Submissions Only On The Jurisdictional Issue

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer (AO) has to pass final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions are received. In the instant case, the DRP directions u/s. 144C(5) of the Act are dated 18.03.2021, hence the due date to pass

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte.Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6529/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Megha Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR

Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

hearing : 01/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 26/12/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These two appeals by assessee are directed against the order of Dispute Resolution Panel-2 [for short ‘DRP’] vide orders dated 28.08.2018 & 27.01.2022 for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 & 2018-19 respectively. We shall first take up appeal ... Corning (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. “1:0 Re: Treating the fabrication charges received as fees for technical services: 1:1 The Assessing Officer / the Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in taxing the amount of Rs. 9,11,78,540/- received by the Appellant during the year under consideration as fabrication charges

Siva Ventures Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ann L.Kapthuama (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

been passed by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) r.w.s. 144C on 17.02.2014 pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 20.12.2013. The Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of international transactions as carried out by assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AE) has been determined

Solvay Specialities India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and ld

ITA 604/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Solvay Specialties India Pvt Ltd Dcit 16(2) Equinox Business Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower-4, 9Th Floor, Unit No. Vs. Mumbai-400 020 903, Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aajcs0613F Assessee By : Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By : Richa Gulati – Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Richa Gulati – Sr AR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 37Section 92C

Income Tax Act amounting to ₹ 16,02,93,776/- was made. This assessment order was passed based on directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 28.02.2022. Solvay Specialties India Pvt Ltd.; A.Y. 2017-18 02. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “Being aggrieved by the order

Dboi Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1263/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd [ Formerly Dboi Global Services Addl/Jt/Dy/Assit/Cit/Ito, Ltd] Block B-4, Level-6, National E-Assessment Vs. Nirlon Knowledge Park, Centre, New Delhi-110 003 Western Express Highway, Goregoan East, Mumbai-400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2953L

For Appellant: Shri Jehnagir D. MistriFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 155JSection 234BSection 234C

book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Act. This order was passed as per the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai passed under Section 144C (5) of the Act dated 15th March, 2021. 02. The assessee has preferred this appeal raising following grounds of appeal ... Dispute Resolution Panel I (herein after referred to as „DRP‟) vide the Directions dated 15 March 2021 (DIN: ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2020- 21/1031480338(1), passed under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as “the Act”) erred in rejecting the additional ground of objection filed

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5193/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

challenging the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO‘), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘learned DRP’) Edenred SA A.Y. 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), details of which

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7248/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Craftsman Automation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 652/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.652/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.N.ArjunrajFor Respondent: Dr.S.Palanikumar, CIT

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

r.w.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) vide order dated 14.01.2016, passed in consequent to order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore, vide order F.No.420/DRP-2/BNG/2015-16 dated 28.12.2015, u/s.144C(5) of the :- 2 -: Act. The Transfer Pricing Order was passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1690/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

Fees for technical services (FTS) 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) and DCIT have erred in considering income from consulting and engineering services amounting to INR 15 18 250/- as Fees for technical services ... Fees for technical services (FTS) 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the leamed DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) and DCIT have erred in considering management fees & common cost recharge amounting to INR 5,67 33.937/- as Royalty and Fees for technical services

Microsemi India Private Limited (Now Merged With Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 211/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order dated 22.11.2019 by incorporating the above adjustment. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’). The DRP vide its directions dated 01.03.2021 rejected the objections of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated

Rahee Jhajharia E to E (Jv), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-32, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 135/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Rahee Jhajharia E To E (Jv),..................Appellant “Kemwell Manor”, 5Th Floor, 10/D/2, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aabar5042H] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,..Respondent Circle-32, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri K.K. Khemka, Advocate & Shri Anuj Musaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is bad in law and invalid. 2. Since Finance Act 2017 omitted section 92BA( 1) the impugned transactions are outside the definition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited( Formerly Known As Symphoney Teleca Corporation India Private Limited), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 631/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.631/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Harman Connected Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2) Services Corporation India V. Bangalore. Private Limited (Formerly Symphony Telca Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Village, K.R.Puram, Hobli Bangalore – 560 066 Pan : Aabcg5658E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Software Development Services To Its Group Companies As Well As Third Parties. For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2011 Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

order was passed, incorporating the above TP adjustment as well as certain corporate tax additions. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 16.12.2015, disposed of the objections of the assessee. Pursuant to the directions ... Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as follows:- “I. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to law and facts of the case. II. The ld.Hon’ble DRP erred in holding that the size and turnover

Asst CIT Cir 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1794/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 253Section 80G

arithmetic mean of non AE transactions for arriving at Arm’s Length Price of brokerage charged for CH and DVP Trades. The Dispute Resolution Panel erred in appreciating the fact that the charging of brokerage is not dependent either on the no. of scripts involved, or on the value ... basis of cut of all brokerage and cut off of contract basis after granting adjustment on marketing. For A.Y. 2009-10, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel directed to apply the weighted average rate in respect of clearing house trades and delivery versus payment trades. No further adjustment was allowed

Morgan Stanley India Company P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1715/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Co No. 145/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 1794/Mum/2016 For A.Y. 11-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 253Section 80G

Oxford University Press Ai, Mumbai vs. DCIT International Taxation, Mumbai

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

ITA 2186/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 143(3)Section 194H

disallowance made by the ld. AO in the draft assessment order was confirmed by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (ld. DRP in short) with minor relief granted to the assessee. For the purpose of working out the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the ld. AO observed

Wissen Infotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 329/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 92C

Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. The assessee filed these two appeals feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru, dated 06.09.2019 & 22.02.2021 for the AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. 2 Wissen Infotech Pvt.Ltd. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee ... read as under : “1. The Learned Assessing Officer / Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld DRP/AO ought to have accepted the Profit margin of the assessee company (as computed by the Ld.TPO himself) as complied with the arms

Wissen Infotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1820/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 92C

Hannover Millano Fairs Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2065/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manuj SabharwalFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s