“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

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

ITA 1112/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, DR

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

income tax act, 1961 dated 23/12/2016, wherein the directions u/s 144C (5) of the income tax act, 1961 issued by the learned dispute resolution panel – 3, Mumbai dated 30/9/2016 were Incorporated and transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 63,15,925/– was made on account of arm’s-length price ... passed determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,87,64,680/-. 06. The assessee filed an objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (the learned DRP). Assessee also filed additional evidence before the learned DRP as per letter dated 9th November, 2015. The learned DRP also

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1954/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

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

section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–2, Mumbai, (―learned DRP‖), for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– Siemens Limited (Successor ... learned Transfer Pricing Officer (the learned TPO) and the learned Assessing Officer (the learned AO) erred and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) further erred in upholding / confirming an addition of Rs. 4,52.41.176/- to the Appellant's total income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

ITA 1100/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, DR

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

Lintas India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 595/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Acit Cir 3(2)(1) Lintas India Private Limited It Office, R.No. 608, 6 Th 15Th Floor, Express Towers, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Lintas India Private Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit/Income- Limited 15Th Floor, Express Tax Officer, National Faceless Vs. Towers, Nariman Point, Appeal Centre, Delhi Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl0124F Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain & Siddhesh Chaugule Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer(„TOP‟) and the learned Assessing Officer(AO) under the directions of the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟) erred in making an adjustment of ₹ 18,36,63,743/- under Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and other ... also referred to the OECD guidelines. He also questioned whether the services have been rendered or not. He further stated that the learned Dispute Resolution Panel in assessee‟s own case from A.Y. 2010-11 onwards has rejected CUP method and failure of the assessee to prove the Need-Evidence

Wns Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa Faceless Assessment Centre, Dilhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalwns Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Pl 10, Gate No.4, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079. Pan: Aaacw2598L ...... Appellant Vs.. Addl./Jt/Dy./Acit/Ito/Nfac, Room No. 455, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Manish Kant Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR

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

read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) (Assessment order), in pursuance of the directions issued by Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (Hon'ble DRP), Mumbai, on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other: General Ground 1. On the fact and in circumstances

Lintas India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed with the same directions

ITA 398/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain and SiddheshFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1)

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 18/12/2015 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–2, Mumbai, (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2011–12. Assessee’s Appeal- A.Y. 2011-12 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following ... total income of the Appellant amounting to Rs. 3,34,38,510, in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upholding the adjustment to the transfer price proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO'). 1.1 The Ld. DRP/AO/ TPO erred in re-computing

DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ubs Ag, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1347/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 92C

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M M GolwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] for the Assessment Year 2017- 18, as per directions issued by CIT Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act. Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Appellant has raised following grounds ... made by the Appellant in the return of income. 4 Assessment Year: 2017-18 7. The Appellant filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, (WZ) [hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟] against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 19.04.2021. No relief was granted by the DRP as all the objections raised

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.283/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Hp India Sales Private Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner No.24, Salarpuria Arena Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Hosur Main Road Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Arun Kumar, Cit(Tp)-2-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 07.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 13 Grounds In Its Memorandum Of Appeal Dated 22.06.2022. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing, Did Not Raise Any Specific Plea With Regard To Grounds 1 To 5, 10, 12 & 13 (Also Sub-Grounds), Hence, The Same Are Dismissed. The Surviving Grounds, Namely, Grounds 6 To 9, 11 & Its Sub-Grounds, Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Arun Kumar, CIT(TP)-2-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92B

adjustment of Rs.158,86,91,498 pertaining to advertisement, marketing and promotion (AMP) expenses. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 29.01.2022 rejected the assessee’s objections and confirmed the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO. 6. Aggrieved

Excellence Data Research Private Limited, Hyderabad, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 461/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

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

passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) / 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 31-10-2016. The assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises ... 92CA(3) read with section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), pursuant to the directions dated 31 October 2016 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('DRP') under section 144C(5) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio. Transfer Pricing General 2. That

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Thane

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. ChandniFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 69CSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Lanxess

Rothschild (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1557/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

challenging the assessment order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2009-10 in pursuance with the directions given by learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The issue urged in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs.3.95 crores relating to the transfer pricing adjustment made by the assessing

It Expressway Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1040/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) –Ld. DR

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

ACIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merck Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1798/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm M/S. Merk Limited Godrej One, 8Th Floor, Dcit 7(2)(1) Pirojshanagar , Range 7(2)(1) Eastern Express Highway Vs. Mumbai Vikhroli(E) Mumbai-400 079 (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Merk Limited Acit Cir 7(2)(1) R.No. 573, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate A Dr. Bhavan, M.K. Road, A.B. Road, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace2616F Assessee By : Ms. Arativissanji, Ms. Astha Shah Revenue By : Shri. Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

pursuance of order passed u/s. 92C(1)(3) of the Act dated 12.01.2015 which was submitted to direction u/s. 144C(5) of the Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (ld. DRP) dated 23.12.2015, assessing the total income of Assessee at ₹ 110,30,25,578/-. 02. The assessee is aggrieved ... 1525/MUM/2016. “1. General 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer (AO)/Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)(as the case may be) erred in – 1.1 Passing the order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income

Merck Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1525/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

Kontoor Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 214/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.214/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Kontoor Brands India Private The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As Vf Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1) V. Bangalore. Brands India Private Limited) Awfis, 1St Floor, Shabari Complex Field Marshal Cariappa Road Ashok Nagar, Bangalore North Richmond Town S.O. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccv2727L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 02.02.2022 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T.Act. For The Relevant Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As 34 Grounds, But During The Course Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Confined His Argument Only To Ground No.1, Challenging The Legal Issue, Which Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Sri.Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

144C(1) on 31.03.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order passed by the AO on 31.03.2021, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The learned DRP gave directions on 20.12.2021. After the receipt of the directions from the learned DRP, the A.O. passed final assessment

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

case and in law, the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) 3(2)(2), Mumbai ('the Learned AO') and the Dispute Resolution Panel ('the DRP5) erred in holding the amount for business support services of INR 4,15,23,335 and referral fees ... nature of “Fee for Technical Services” and hence, made 3 addition of Rs.4,21,64,190/-. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) but remained unsuccessful. Consequent to the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order which is the subject matter

M/S Owens Coming Inc, Mumbai vs. The DCIT(Intl Tax) Circle 3(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 459/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Owens-Corning Inc. C/O.Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan:Aaaco-3242-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Issue By Way Of Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla & Ms. Megha ShahFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee in appeal has raised solitary issue by way of following grounds of appeal: “1. The Assessing Officer ('AO') / Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in taxing the lease rentals received by the appellant of Rs.5,31,93,808 during the year under consideration by treating the same as 'royalty

M/S. Warner Bros.Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax)-4(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

ITA 1721/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvkvkla- 1721@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Applicant Warner Bros. Distributing Inc. C/Of The Act Warner Bros. Pictures India Pvt. Ltd. 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan No. Aaacw6559R Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No.1611, 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash-Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 5(2)

case.” 4. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) submits that in ground no. 7 of appeal, the assesse has assailed the findings of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer (AO) in holding Warner Bros. Pictures India Private Limited as Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the assessee/appellant. Therefore