“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

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

final assessement order dated 30/01/2015 passed by the Assessing Officer 2 ITA 1676/Mum/2015 ITA 1739/Mum/2015 pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C (5) of the income tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment year 2010-11. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee

Ntt Data Fa Insurance Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 261/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.261/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The order of the Assessing Officer ('AO' for short) pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`the DRP' for short). is bad in law and liable to be set aside. IT(TP)A No.261/Bang/2021 NTT Data FA Insurance Systems (India ... which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 6,10,92,371/- on giving effect to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘the DRP’ for short). BRIEF FACTS: 3. The assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of NTT Data FA Insurance Systems Pte. Ltd. The assessee is engaged in the business

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1.1. The learned Assessing Officer ('learned AO'), learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('learned TPO') and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') grossly erred in adjusting the transfer price by INR 1,18,75,36,269/- with respect to the international transactions undertaken

M/S. Mahindra Homes Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2179/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us That The Issues In Asst Year 2016-17 May Be Taken As The Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Thereon Would Apply With Equal Force For The Asst Year 2017-18 Also In View Of Identical Facts Except With Variance In Figures.

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

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hon'ble DRP). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ Joint Commissioner

Mahindra Homes P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Asst Year 2016-17 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

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

Technimont Spa India Project Office, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (It) RG 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.691/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09) M/S. Tecnimont Spa India बिधम/ Additional Director Of Office Income Tax-(It)-Range-2 Vs. Tecnimont Icb House, 1St Floor, R. No. 108, Chincholi Bunder, 504 Link Scindia House, Ballard Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- Estate, N. M. Road, 400064. Mumbai-400038. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact8224A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri Pranav Gandhi Revenue By: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “Ao”) Dated 30.11.2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Only Issue Is Regarding The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Ao Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Is A Foreign Company Incorporated At Milan, Italy & It Has A Project Office In India Which Is The Permanent Establishment (Pe). According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Has Been Awarded A Project By M/S. Indian Oil Corporation (Hereinafter “M/S. Iocl”) At Panipat Project. The Assessee In Turn Has Awarded The Same Project To Two (2) Of Its Associated Enterprises/Ae’S

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia/ Shri PranavFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (DR)

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

assessee brought to our notice that the only issue is regarding the Transfer Pricing Adjustment made by the AO pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) direction. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee is a Foreign Company incorporated at Milan, Italy and it has a project office in India

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari

Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

appeal for AY 2005- 1. 06, erred in merely following the order of learned CIT(A) for the AY 2004-05 and Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) for AY 2006-07 without discussing the facts of the case and legal merits for AY 2005-06”. “erred in facts

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1521/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

against Nil returned income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in holding that the receipts from Indian customers amounting to INR 73,00,83,910 are chargeable to tax as royalty in terms ... further appeal before the Hon‟ble High Court in earlier assessment years. 9. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed detailed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP’), Vide Directions dated 09/03/2022, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act, the DRP, following its observations rendered in assessee‟s own case

American Chemical Society, Gurgaon vs. The Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1520/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Ltd. (Judicial Managers Appointed), Mumbai vs. Asst Clt (It) Cirlce- 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7847/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jigar VoraFor Respondent: Shri Somendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] for the Assessment Year 2016-17 as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 25.09.2018. Assessment Year: 2016-17 2. The Appellant filed return

Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee‟s appeals [ITA No

ITA 1822/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Section 44B

factual matrix, the Tribunal had set aside the final assessment order and restored issues raised in appeal back to the file of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) holding as under: “18. Thus, we set aside the final assessment order and restore the entire matter back to the file

Hp Pps Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 278/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Hp Pps Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 24, Salarpuria Commissioner Of Arena, Income Tax, Hosur Main Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Adugodi, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aadch5825N Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Assessee By Khincha, Ca : Shri Binod Kumar Singh, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 29/03/2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “The Appellant Submits That: I. Transfer Pricing The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao'), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Learned Tpo') & The Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'Ble Drp')

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand

hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 1. The learned Assessing Officer ('learned AO'), learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('learned TPO') and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') Page 2 IT(TP)A No. 278/Bang/2021 erred in law and facts in making an aggregate Transfer Pricing adjustment ('TP adjustment

M/S. Dell International Services India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Computer India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/BANG/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Dell International Services The Deputy Commissioner Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Dell Circle – 2(1)(1), Computer India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. 12/1A, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021, Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is The Subsidiary Of Dell International Usa & Is Engaged In The Provision Of Call Centre Support Services, Back-Office Support Services & Offshore Development Support Services [Software Development (“Swd”)] To Its Associated Enterprises (“Aes”). The Assessee Provided The Aforesaid Services To It(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 12

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

order dated 17.02.2020 came to be passed in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”), IT(TP)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 12 which vide order dated 18.03.2021 granted partial relief to the Appellant in terms of which

M/S Opto Circuits India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputty Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1315/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1315/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Opto Circuits India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.38, Electronic City Road Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2) V. Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan : Aaaco2165P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, Itp Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 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 06.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. There Is A Delay Of 171 Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit Of Managing Director Of The Assessee, Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated, We Find That The Assessee By Mistake Had Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) (As Against The Final Assessment Order) & On Realizing The Mistake, Immediately The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Tribunal. We Find There Is A Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

adjustment and making certain other corporate tax disallowances / additions. 4. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Before the DRP, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the DRP dismissed the objections of the assessee in limine without

M/S. Aura Spinwell Ltd., Mumbai vs. The ITO-Circle-4(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 1147/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Aura Spinwell Ltd. The Ito Office No. 209, Circle 4(1)(3) Kapadia Chambers, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. J.S.S. Road, M.K. Road, Marine Line East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3114A

For Appellant: None

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

basis of order passed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld TPO), according to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the basis of inconsistent and perverse finding and evaluation of facts. The Hon'ble DRP and the Ld TPO have failed to appreciate that ... November, 2019. Consequent to that draft assessment order was passed on 19th December, 2019. 05. Assessee preferred the objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel wherein the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was submitted stating that the benchmarking of specified domestic transaction

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

Rs.7,28,99,000 (disallowance u/s 37 of the I.T.Act). 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide order dated 25.02.2021 granted partial relief to the assessee, whereby the transfer pricing adjustment was reduced to Rs.30

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

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

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

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

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

made additions in the draft Assessment Order in all the four Assessment Years. The assessee filed objections to the draft Assessment Order before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP confronted the order of the AO. The AO passed final Assessment Order against which the assessee has filed those appeals before

Royal Canin India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre/Asst CIT-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1298/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta with Shri Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 143(3)Section 271G

Such observation made by TPO is beyond his jurisdiction, hence, the order of TPO is unsustainable. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the findings of TPO. The DRP without appreciating the facts and documents on record upheld the adjustment made by TPO. The Assessing Officer ... since there is no evidence of services having been rendered at all, the arm’s length price of these services is ‘nil’. The Dispute Resolution Panel has also confirmed these findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Assessing Officer. However, we have noted that vide letter dated 25th January