← 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

Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. The DCIT 2(2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above directions

ITA 659/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blehapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft V. Dcit – 2(2)(2) C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 501, Satellite Gazebo, B-Wing Nariman Point 5Th Floor, Curu Hargovindji Marg Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaach0979G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

following grounds in its appeal: - “1. Relief under Article 8 of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement 1.1 The learned Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel ['DRP] has erred in not appreciating the facts in the case of the appellant and therefore appellant prays that the impugned order be treated

Interactive Brokers (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4860/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri O. P. Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2088/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Interactive Brokers (India) बिधम/ Dcit-4(1)(1) Pvt Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 502/A, Times Square, Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6871R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeet Kamdar Revenue By: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 30.01.2017 First For A.Y.2012-13 & Assessment Order Dated 23.05.2017 For A.Y.2013-14 U/S 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. We First Take Up The Appeal For Ay 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Read As Under: - “Ground No.1 Disallowance Of Cost Of Administrative Support Services For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘(Drp')/ Income Tax Officer — Dcit, Range 4(1)(1) (‘Ao’) / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo’) Erred In Re-Computing The Alp Of The International Transaction Of Payment Of Administrative Support Service Fee For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function By The Appellant To Its 2

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

audit support, clearing and treasury support function 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘(DRP')/ Income Tax Officer — DCIT, Range 4(1)(1) (‘AO’) / learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) erred in re-computing the ALP of the international

Interactive Brokers (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2088/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri O. P. Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. (Tp) No.2088/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4860/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) Interactive Brokers (India) बिधम/ Dcit-4(1)(1) Pvt Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 502/A, Times Square, Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci6871R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jeet Kamdar Revenue By: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 30.01.2017 First For A.Y.2012-13 & Assessment Order Dated 23.05.2017 For A.Y.2013-14 U/S 143(3) R.W. Section 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. We First Take Up The Appeal For Ay 2012-13. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Read As Under: - “Ground No.1 Disallowance Of Cost Of Administrative Support Services For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘(Drp')/ Income Tax Officer — Dcit, Range 4(1)(1) (‘Ao’) / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo’) Erred In Re-Computing The Alp Of The International Transaction Of Payment Of Administrative Support Service Fee For Internal Audit Support, Clearing & Treasury Support Function By The Appellant To Its 2

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

audit support, clearing and treasury support function 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘(DRP')/ Income Tax Officer — DCIT, Range 4(1)(1) (‘AO’) / learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) erred in re-computing the ALP of the international

Lg Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 266/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)

No.266/Bang/2021 LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 26 Proceedings before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') 3.5 In relation to assessee's contention on inclusion of companies to be considered as comparable, the DRP directed inclusion of two (2) companies i.e., Eluminous Technologies Ltd. & Sasken Communication Technologies

Airlinq Technology Private Limited (Formerly Known As Globetouch Technologies Private Limited), Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 231/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.231/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Airlinq Technology Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Globe Touch Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Technologies Private Limited) 306, 100 Feet Road, Binna Mangala Stage – 1, Indiranagar Bangalore – 560 038. Pan : Aafcg7626L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, Cas Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 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 29.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Was Incorporated On 15.10.2014 As A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Globetouch Inc, Usa. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Development Services (Swd) To Globetouch Inc. For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring An Income Of Rs.4,23,01,510 Under The Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act. The Assessment Was Selected

For Appellant: S/Sri.Ajit Kumar Jain & Siddesh Chaugule, CAsFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92D

segment. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed incorporating the above TP adjustment. The assessee preferred objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 26.03.2021, disposed of the objections of the assessee. Pursuant to the DRP’s directions, the TP adjustment

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

appeal filed on 26.03.2018 Transfer pricing matters 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("learned DRP") erred in confirming the action of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore ("learned AO")/ learned Additional ... time of hearing of this Appeal.” 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

appeal filed on 26.03.2018 Transfer pricing matters 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("learned DRP") erred in confirming the action of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore ("learned AO")/ learned Additional ... time of hearing of this Appeal.” 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Dispute Resolution Panel erred

Polycom Technology ( R & D ) Center P. Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia & Shri MihirFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in his order passed under section 92CA (3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. On the facts and circumstances ... order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

M/S. Sulzer Tech India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt./ Dy./ Asstt. CIT/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 633/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Saeana a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

assessment order under section 144C of the Act. 8. Vide directions dated 18/03/2021 issued under section 144C(5) of the Act, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) rejected the objections filed by the assessee, by observing as under: “18.2 The Panel has gone through the assessee's submissions made

M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 183/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Nitin G. Inamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

following grounds: - i. Disallowance of telecommunication line expenses as capital in nature a. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Learned AO") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') grossly erred in considering telecommunication line expenses as capital in nature. b. The Learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in not considering

Torrecid India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7076/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Circle 11(3)(1) Torrecid India Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Plot No.29, 30, 31, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Alindra, Savli Gidc, Vadodara, Vadodara–391775 Mk Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct 4321 M

For Appellant: Shri Sunil M. Lala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neelu Jaggi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92

with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 30th October, 2017, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Mumbai [The Ld DRP]. Torrecid India Private Limited; A.Y. 13–14 02. By this order, the return filed by the assessee on 27th ... Transfer Pricing Officer ("ld. TPO (dated 13 October 2017 received on 16 October 2017) in pursuance to the directions issued by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") (dated 23 August 2017) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income

Thyssenkrupp Industiral Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1274/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H. Jamshedji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 40

transaction pertaining to ‘Reimbursement of Expenses‟ as NIL. In conformity, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order dated 25/03/2015. 7. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) vide directions dated 14/12/2015, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act rejected the objections filed by the assessee by holding that

Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 321/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

delayed receivables amounting to Rs. 1,79,24,794/- 2.3 Aggrieved by the draft order the Appellant filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore (`DRP') on July 20, 2021. In line with Hon'ble DRP's directions dated January 27, 2022, the learned TPO in its scrutiny report

M/S. Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, Bangalore

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

ITA 606/BANG/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA
Section 3(1)(b)

banking and financial services and insurance sector and also as R&D operations and patents and hence not functionally comparable. However, Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) observed that this company is only engaged in software development and related services as seen from its financials. Therefore, the plea of the assessee

On Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

adjustment of Rs.4,58,98,195. Pursuant to the TPO’s order, draft assessment order was passed. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order disputing the adjustment made under Software Development Services (SWD) Segment and interest on delayed receivables. The DRP vide

M/S. Success Factors Business Solutions India Private Limited (Now Merged With Sap Labs India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 2510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., No. 138, Export It(Tp)A No. Promotion Industrial 2008-09 606/Bang/2021 Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P The Joint M/S. Sap Labs India Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, (Successor To M/S. Special Range – 6, Success Factors Bangalore. Business Solutions It(Tp)A No. India Pvt. Ltd.), 2015-16 2510/Bang/2019 No. 138, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aafcs3649P

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CA
Section 3(1)(b)

banking and financial services and insurance sector and also as R&D operations and patents and hence not functionally comparable. However, Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) observed that this company is only engaged in software development and related services as seen from its financials. Therefore, the plea of the assessee

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

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessment year 2009-10 10, in pursuant to the direction dated 20/12/2013 of the the direction dated 20/12/2013 of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA No. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal ... giving revised calculation of adjustment in the assessment lation of adjustment in the assessment order based on order based on the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel allowing relief for market the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel allowing relief for market the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel allowing relief for market

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessment year 2009-10 10, in pursuant to the direction dated 20/12/2013 of the the direction dated 20/12/2013 of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA No. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal ... giving revised calculation of adjustment in the assessment lation of adjustment in the assessment order based on order based on the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel allowing relief for market the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel allowing relief for market the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel allowing relief for market

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 92D

circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned AO, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bangalore ('Panel' or 'DRP'), and the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing- Circle (2)(2)(2), Bengaluru ('Learned

M/S Te Connectivity India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2680/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92

regarding depreciation and additional depreciation as follows:- “11. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ learned Dispute Resolution Panel (learned DRP') has erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to INR 2,21,15,523/- claimed by the Appellant on additions made to fixed assets during