← 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

Sime Darby Engineering Sdn Bhd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-2, Dehradun

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 7616/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)

vs.DCIT 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) subsequent to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel DRP) as tabulated below: Sr. ITA No. Asstt. DRP Final Nos. Year Direction Assessment Dt. Order dt. 1 7616/DDN/2018 2015-16 10.08.2018 27.09.2018 2. 9/DDN/2021 ... submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

National Oilwell Varco Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Ci9Rcle-2, Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5898/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) subsequent to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel DRP) as tabulated below: S. No. ITA No. Asstt. Year DRP Direction Final Assessment Dt. Order dt. 1 1675/DDN/2016 2012-13 16.12.2015 27.01.2016 2. 1557/DDN/2017 ... submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

National Oilwell Varco Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1557/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) subsequent to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel DRP) as tabulated below: S. No. ITA No. Asstt. Year DRP Direction Final Assessment Dt. Order dt. 1 1675/DDN/2016 2012-13 16.12.2015 27.01.2016 2. 1557/DDN/2017 ... submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

National Oilwell Varco Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1675/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) subsequent to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel DRP) as tabulated below: S. No. ITA No. Asstt. Year DRP Direction Final Assessment Dt. Order dt. 1 1675/DDN/2016 2012-13 16.12.2015 27.01.2016 2. 1557/DDN/2017 ... submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the assessment order passed under the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (DRP), Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2024- 25/1071292022(1), dated 17.12.2024, u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the assessment order passed under the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (DRP), Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2024- 25/1071292022(1), dated 17.12.2024, u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Camfil India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Range 53, Gurgaon

ITA 6011/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthi

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144C of the I.T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self-contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Lt.D, Gurgoan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5389/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

limitation and is as such liable to be quashed." Additional Ground No. 39: That since the Direction dated 25.09.2024 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-1 ("DRP"), do not bear a computer-generated Document Identification Number ("DIN") on its body, the same is in contravention of paragraph ... section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings ITA No.5389/Del/2024 & SA No. 577/Del/2025 Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs NFAC before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

Athena Hisar Solar Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5372/DEL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Vs Dcit, Assessment Unit, Ltd., J5/132, Rajouri Garden, Civic Centre, E-2, Delhi-110027 Delhi Pan-Aaoca5969P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 26.09.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee'S Representative Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) & Also Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory Athena Hisar

Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5199/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Circle-13(1) Business Center, Gurgaon C.R. Building, Delhi Road, South West Delhi- 110037. Pan-Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sumit Mangal, Adv. Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 23.10.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Bench Has Asked The Assessee To File Specific Ground Of Appeal No.2 As Against General Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Taken. In Compliance, Assessee Vide Application Dt. 12.03.2025 Filed Under Rule 11 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal Under. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Taken Reads As Under: Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory Johnson Matthey

Dora Medical Trading (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

ITA 4998/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153 of the Act even in case where proceedings are round through the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) mechanism under section 144C. IN present case, the last date of passing the assessment order was 31.3.2023, whereas the assessment order has actually been

Manlift India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 16(3), New Delhi

ITA 4461/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings Page | 5 ITA No.4461/Del/2024 Manlift India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

Delta Electronics India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

ITA 4448/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

Mufg Bank, Ltd., New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 3929/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144Cof the I. T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Ariba India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2705/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

144C r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act”) arising out of the directions issued by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, New Delhi ("ld. DRP") dated 18.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return ... sake of ready reference, the Provisions of section 144C are reproduced as under: Ariba India Pvt.Ltd. vs. ACIT “144C. Reference to dispute resolution panel. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 134/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144Cof the I. T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Mufg Bank Ltd. (Earlier Known As the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, Ltd. ), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

ITA 1477/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthimufg Bank Ltd., आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 134/Del/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Pan No.Aabct3880D E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3929/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate (Virtual) Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., बनाम 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Vs. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.844/Del/2021 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Pan No.Aabct3880D Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1476/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 1

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144Cof the I. T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Mufg Bank Ltd. (Earlier Known As the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, Ltd. ), Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1476/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144Cof the I. T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Mufg Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 844/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 134/Del/2023 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3929/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. Acit, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Mufg Bank Ltd., 5Th Floor, Worldmark-2, Asset 8, Aerocity, Nh-8, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabct3880D बनाम Vs. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.844/Del/2021 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Circle 2(2)(1),International Taxation, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1476/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 1

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144Cof the I. T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

ITA 9752/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthi

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144C of the I.T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self-contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such