← 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

Aecom India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1021/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.2404/दिल्ली/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Respondent: S/Shri Vishal Kalra & Ankit Sahni, Advcoates with
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

M/S. Aecom India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 2404/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.2404/दिल्ली/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Respondent: S/Shri Vishal Kalra & Ankit Sahni, Advcoates with
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Par Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1009/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1009/Chny/2017 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92A

Chennai ("Ld. AO"), the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - 2(i/c), Chennai ("Ld. TPO") and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP"), (hereinafter collectively referred as the "lower authorities"); inflicting a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 49.29 crores towards purported arm's length sale PAR Formulations

Manisha Devnani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is rejected as non

ITA 344/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Varis Isani (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: 19/01/2026
Section 115BSection 144C(3)Section 147Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

copies of the draft assessment order barred by 201 days, that copies of the draft assessment order Manisha Devnani and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have not been and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have not bee and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have ... acceptance of the variations to the required to, either file acceptance of the variations to the AO or file its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Palloni and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds of appeal of Revenue are dismissed”

ITA 1217/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

computation of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. Since the Assessee preferred not to file any objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order, dated 07/02/2017 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act making (a) Transfer Pricing Addition

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1211/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1150/MUM/2025

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

computation of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. Since the Assessee preferred not to file any objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order, dated 07/02/2017 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act making (a) Transfer Pricing Addition ... with Section 144C(1) proposing, inter-alia, the above Transfer Pricing Addition. Since the Assessee preferred not to file any objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order, dated 20/04/2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act. After making

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

computation of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. Since the Assessee preferred not to file any objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order, dated 07/02/2017 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act making (a) Transfer Pricing Addition ... with Section 144C(1) proposing, inter-alia, the above Transfer Pricing Addition. Since the Assessee preferred not to file any objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order, dated 20/04/2016 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act. After making

Haskoningdhv Consulting Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1040/Del/2021 (Honda Cars India Ltd

ITA 6120/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6120/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Haskoningdhv Consulting Private Limited Acit, Office No.204, 2Nd Floor, Rs Tower, Plot No. B Vs. Circle-10(1), 358A, New Ashok Nagar No.1267, Room No.389 A, 3Rd Floor, C.R. Building, Vasundhara Enclave, East Delhi. Pan No.Aaacm8966G Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

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

Lonza India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 6010/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.5351/दिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Iqr Analytics Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10 (1), Delhi

ITA 5763/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.5351/दिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Voith Paper Fabrics India Limited, Faridabad vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Jao- DCIT, Circle 1, Faridabad)

ITA 5351/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.5351/दिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

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

Coca-Cola India Inc. - India Branch Office, Gurugram, Haryana vs. Assistant Or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurugram, Haryana

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5316/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5223/Del/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Ddit Enkay Tower, Udyog Vihar, Vs. International Taxation, Phase-V, Gurgaon. Circle 3(2), New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5031/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Dcit India Branch Office, Vs. International Taxation, 17Th Floor, One Horizon Centre, Circle, Gurgaon. Dlf Golf Course Road, Dlf Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.431/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Acit India Branch Office, Vs. International Taxation, 17Th Floor, One Horizon Centre, Circle, Gurgaon. Dlf Golf Course Road, Dlf Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.503/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Acit India Branch Office, Vs. International Taxation, 17Th Floor, One Horizon Centre, Circle, Gurgaon. Dlf Golf Course Road, Dlf Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

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

Avaya India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Not Available

ITA 5279/DEL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026

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

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

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

Coim India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4466/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalcoim India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Shop No. 4, Ground Floor Income Tax, Income Tax Rajendrabhawan, Patel Nagar, Department, Circle 4(2), East Central Delhi, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabcy0901A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 158A

Order was extended by 12 months under Section 153(4) of the Act. 4 25.10.2023 4. Objections filed by the Appellant before the Dispute Resolution Panel in Form 35A within 30 days of receipt of the draft order. in compliance with Section 144C(2) of the Act. 5 5. Directions

Coca-Cola India Inc- India Branch Office, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 4420/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

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

Airbnb India Private Limited, Delhi, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Central Revenue Building, Delhi, India

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4331/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalairbnb India Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Caddie Commercial Central Revenue Building, Tower, Aerocity, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aakca5525B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ao Dated 24.07.2024 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Subsequent To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Direction Dated 27.06.2024. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/07/2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) & Also Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) for Assessment Year 2020-21 subsequent to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide direction dated 27.06.2024. 2. The Assessee raised Ground No. 2 contending that the Final Assessment order dated 24/07/2024 passed ... submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with

Motorola Solutions India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4324/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

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

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

Avaya India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Not Available

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4290/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

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

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

Airbnb Payments India Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4263/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalairbnb Payments India Private Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Gurugram, Haryana. Level 9, Spaze I Tech Park, Vs A1 Tower, Sector-49, . Sohna Road, Gurugram-122018 Haryana. Pan-Aanca6203B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ao Dated 18.07.2024 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Subsequent To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Direction Dated 24.06.2024. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 18/07/2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Relying On Airbnb Payments India Private Limited Vs. Dcit The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 Itr 537 (Madras) & Also Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) for Assessment Year 2020-21 subsequent to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide direction dated 24.06.2024. 2. The Assessee raised Ground No. 2 contending that the Final Assessment order dated 18/07/2024 passed ... submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with