“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

M/S. Nike India 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 203/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nike India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ground & First Floor, Olympia Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Building, No.66/1, Begmane Tech Park, C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn9612K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 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 27.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Wholesale Distributor Of Nike Brand Products In India. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2016 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.164,42,63,191. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The 2 It(Tp)A No.203/Bang/2021. M/S.Nike India Private Limited. Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 31.10.2019, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Tp Adjustment Totaling To Rs.63,27,41,494 Under Various Segments. The Details Of The Same Are As Follows:- Segment Adjustment (Rs.) Issue Of Sourcing Commission 30,57,35,722 Reimbursement Of Expenses 17,77,95,683 Third Party Royalty 2,00,08,967 Amp Expenses 12,92,01,122 Total 63,27,41,494

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR

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

incorporating the above TP adjustments. The Assessing Officer also made certain corporate tax additions / disallowances. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its order dated 05.02.2021, disposed of the objections raised by the assessee. The DRP partially granted relief to the assessee ... M/s.Nike India Private Limited. A. Transfer Pricing 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 rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant by invoking provisions of sub- section (3) of92C

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

determination of its Arms Length Price of international transaction. The Transfer Pricing Officer was further noted that for A.Y. 2008-09, the Dispute Resolution Panel has also accepted the assessee as tested party. Accordingly, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer selected 15 comparables whose arithmetic mean of the margin (PLI) OP/OC ... pursuance of the directions issued by The ITA Nos. 295/M/2020 & CO No.52/M/2020, 2383/M/2019 WNS Global Services P. Ltd; A.Ys. 15-16, 10-11 Dispute Resolution Panel – 2 (the learned DRP) raising following grounds of appeal. “Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

Nbc Fashion India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Nbc Fashion India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Splendor Forum, 4Th Floor, Units Tax, Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai 401-412, Jasola District Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Delhi-100 025 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aadcn0495L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1 ('DRP') is a vitiated order, as the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 3(2)(2) ('Ld. AO')/DRP erred both on facts ... thus determining the total income at Rs.7,15,13,046/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP). The DRP partly confirmed the proposed addition. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Having heard both the learned representatives and perused the materials

Oocl Logistics (India ). P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7024/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the learned Assessing Officer. (A.O) under direction issued by the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), erred in making an addition to the Appellant‟s total income of Rs.1,62,53,950/– (i.e. Rs.One Crore Sixty Two Lacs Fifty ... passed order under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. The assessee filed detailed objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘learned DRP’) against the adjustment proposed by the TPO/AO. The learned DRP vide directions dated 26/07/2012, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act dismissed

Damco International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7447/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Poras Kaka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: S/ Shri B.K.Bagchi & Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Officer (TPO) on reference u/s 92CA of the Act, made no adjustment in respect of the aforesaid transaction. The Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has held the receipts received by assessee from Damco India are in the nature of FTS/Royalty. 3.4 The ld.Counsel for the assessee asserts

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

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

under:- The Appellant submits that: 1. That the order of the Assessing Officer (AO' for short) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('the DRP. for short), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be set aside. IT(TP)A No.210/Bang/2021

Capita India Pvt Limited (Capita India), Mumbai vs. Nafc Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 732/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessment year 2017-18 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Ground nos.1, 21 and 22 are general in nature. Ground nos. 2 to 13 relate to the addition on account of transfer pricing

Zodiac Maritime Agencies India P. Ld., Mumbai vs. National E-Assesment Centre (Neac), Delhi

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

ITA 1225/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

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

Assessing Officer („A.O.‟), inter-alia, passed the draft assessment order incorporating the adjustment proposed by the TPO. 6. In proceedings before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟), the assessee filed detailed objections against the aforesaid adjustment proposed by the TPO / A.O. Before the learned DRP, assessee submitted that during

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 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 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. Transfer Pricing adjustment under section 92CA 1. of the Act 1.1. The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP”), learned AO and Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in determining the transfer pricing adjustment

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

No.211/Mum./2016 by the Income Tax Officer 15(31) (hereinafter referred to as the "AO') in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRP'), Mumbai, under Section 253 of the Act on the following grounds. which are independent and without prejudice ... conformity, Trimble Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.211/Mum./2016 the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 19/02/2015. 8. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟) vide directions dated 27/11/2015, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act rejected the objections filed by the assessee on this issue by holding

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5129/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Assessing Officer, inter-alia, passed the draft assessment order under section 143(3) with section 144C(1) of the Act. 7. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’), vide direction dated 18/04/2017 issued under section 144C(5) of the Act, following the directions issued in assessee’s own case for assessment

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 173/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 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 22.11.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

draft assessment order in conformity with the TPO’s order. 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP directed to make following adjustment to the ITES segment:- (i) Directed the TPO to treat foreign exchange as operating in nature

Polycom Technology Centre, Delhi vs. Nationa E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 944/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

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

Officer passed a draft assessment order making the above said addition. The assessee objected to the addition by filing the objections before learned Dispute Resolution Panel. In the meantime, the assessee entered into Unilateral Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with the CBDT, which covered year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee intimated

Mersen India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 381/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mersen India Pvt. The Joint Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 5, Bommasandra Income Tax (Osd), Industrial Area, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 099. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaace3191K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Ramya Nayak, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 22/03/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. Transfer Pricing 1. The Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo"), The Assessing Officer ("Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ("Drp") Have Grossly Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Determining The Arm'S Length Price ("Alp") Of The Human Resource Services As Nil. 2. The Learned Tpo/ Ao/Drp Has Erred In Not Considered The Fact That The Human Resource Services Is As Per The Arm'S Length Price Adopting The Transaction Net Margin Method (" Tnmm")

For Appellant: Smt. Ramya Nayak, CA

grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. Transfer Pricing 1. The Transfer Pricing officer ("TPO"), the Assessing Officer ("AO") and the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ("DRP") have grossly erred in law and facts of the case in determining the Arm's length price ("ALP") of the Human resource

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 702/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37

against different orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] by Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). Grounds raised by the assessee in both these appeals for the A.Ys 2005-06 & 2006-07 are common and for the sake ... No.701/Bang/2021 for the AY 2005-06: 1. That the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the order of the transfer pricing officer in so far as it is against the appellant is against the law, facts, circumstances

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 701/BANG/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

Bengaluru (“Learned TPO”) under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“Learned Panel”), to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant, are bad in law and contrary to the facts. IT(TP)A No.2385/Bang/2019 ... order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 24.12.2018 was served on the assessee. The assessee filed its objection before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) and the Ld. DRP vide order dated 27.9.2019 issued direction to the AO/TPO and the TPO in turn passed an order giving effect

Hempel Singapoe Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamini, Addl. CIT

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

independent and without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP)/Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) erred in further attributing Rs.8,35,44,660, as income of the Permanent Establishment ... detailed objections against the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Vide directions dated 15/03/2021, issued under section 144C (5) of the Act, learned Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟), though noted that identical issue in assessee‟s own case has been decided in its favour by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

M/S. Meritor C vs. India Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

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

length price on the basis of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer U/s.92CA of the Act, dated 30.10.2019, the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel, dated 16.02.2021 and the consequential order giving effect passed by the TPO on 24.03.2021. ii) not appreciating the fact that, the DRP has erroneously ... furnishing any justification as to why the submissions in regard to some of the comparables were not considered and rejected. ii) The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in ignoring the fact that, in respect of many of the comparables proposed by the TPO in the order U/s.92CA