“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 Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cicle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1513/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

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

final assessment order dated 28.4.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act passed in consequence to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) dated 14.3.2017. The assessee raised various grounds which reads as under:- IT(TP)A No.1513/Bang/2017 M/s. Tokai Rika Minda India Pvt. Ltd., Nelamangala ... 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") have grossly erred in in law and facts of the case by proposing a transfer pricing adjustment

Liebherr India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Appellant has raised following rounds of appeal: “1. Re: Adjustment ... account of import of spare parts and cranes/machines: Assessment Year: 2012-13 1.1. The Assessing Officer ["AO"]/the Dispute Resolution Panel ["DRP"] the Transfer Pricing Officer ["TPO"] erred in making an upward adjustment of Rs. 2,72,11,637/- to the value of international transactions pertaining to the import

Clsa India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Clsa India Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 4(1), 8/F Dalamal House, Room No.640, Aayakar Nariman Point, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 021 Mumbai–400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2262K Assessee By : S/Shri Mukesh Butani, Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar, Mr. Harsh R Shah, Shreyash Shah Revenue By : Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022

For Appellant: S/Shri Mukesh ButaniFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

learned CIT – A upheld the adoption of CUP as the most appropriate method. Further, he also referred to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006 – 07 where the action of the AO in applying CUP method was confirmed. 2385/Mum/2014

Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1353/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

year 2016-17. As this order is passed pursuant to, and to give effect to, the directions dated 22nd April 2021 of the Dispute Resolution Panel, this appeal is directly filed before us. 2. The core issues requiring our adjudication in this case, as learned representatives agree, are (i) whether ... Dispute Resolution Panel was justified in passing the impugned order dated 22nd April 2021, (ii) whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in given effect, vide his order dated 31st May 2021, to the directions contained in the said order, and, (iii) whether, based on this rectification order passed

Sp Armada Oil Exploration P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-3(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1352/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

year 2016-17. As this order is passed pursuant to, and to give effect to, the directions dated 22nd April 2021 of the Dispute Resolution Panel, this appeal is directly filed before us. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing, learned representatives submitted that the issue in the appeal ... observed, inter alia, as follows: 2. The core issues requiring our adjudication in this case, as learned representatives agree, are (i) whether the Dispute Resolution Panel was justified in passing the impugned order dated 22nd April 2021, (ii) whether the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in given effect, vide

M/S Greatship (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 7001/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M M GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

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

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2015-16, as per directions issued Assessment Year: 2015-16 by Dispute Resolution Panel-1, (WZ),Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’) under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Appellant has raised following rounds of appeal ... motu disallowance of INR 11,21,602/- made by the Appellant in the return of income. 7. The Appellant filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, (WZ) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’] against the draft assessment order, dated 07.12.2018. The DRP granted relief to the Appellant by reducing

Core Edcuation and Technologies Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6352/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald

Section 140Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Core

Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

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

promotion expenses Rs. 61,73,45,429/- and addition on account of unaccounted receiptsRs. 3,14,069/-. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the adjustments/additions made by TPO and the AO. The DRP vide direction dated 25.09.2012 in principle upheld the adjustment but directed

Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

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

Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1178/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

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

Multi Screen Media P. Ltd ( Formerly Knon As Set India P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7721/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh

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

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6994/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 44C

Assessing Officer proceeded to frame a draft assessment order accordingly. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel, but without any success. The stand of the Assessing Officer was approved and reiterated. The Assessing Officer thus proceeded to levy ... assessee was not satisfied with this approach. When grievance about the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer was raised before the Dispute Resolution Panel, the DRP noted that, in the income tax return filed by the assessee, the assessee had claimed a deduction, in the computation of income attributable

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 90

Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7475/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act in pursuance of the direction given by learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The grounds of appeal and additional grounds of appeal urged by the assessee give rise to the following issues :- a) Disallowance of mark to market losses

M/S Altisource Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3368/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.3368/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Altisource Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Pritech Park, Block Nok.12, 3Rd Floor, 5Th Ward – 1(1)(1), Floor, B-Wing & 4Th Floor, B-Wing, Bengaluru. Bellandur Village, Bengaluru-560 103. Pan : Aaaco 9467 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Rashmi R, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. S. Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

suggested by the TPO as above was incorporated by the AO in the draft order of Assessment. The assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft Order of Assessment wherein the addition suggested by the TPO was incorporated by the AO. The DRP gave certain directions

Emc Software and Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 724/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Emc Software & Services Ito, Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 1(3), 112, 113, Akruti Sankul, 2Nd Floor, A – Wing, Room No.205, Opp. Janata Sahakari Bank, Pmt Commercial Complex, Sadashiv Peth, Tilak Road, Shankar-Seth Road, Pune – 411 030. Pune – 411 037. Pan : Aabct 0199 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Gopinath, C.H.V. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gopinath, C.H.V. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92Section 92C

transaction entered into with its Associate Enterprise (AE). The addition made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was a total sum of Page 2 of 3 Rs.48,54,50,000/- in the ITeS and the Software Development (SWD) services segment

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd.[As A Successor to Positive Packaging Industries Ltd], Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (2)91), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8042/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. 2 M/s. Huhtamaki (India) Ltd., Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 23/08/2019 for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. The ground No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature and does

Aker Powergas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 7211/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Aker Powergas P. Ltd. Income–Tax, Circle–15(1)(1), Powergas House, 83 I Think Room No.470, Aayakar Techno Campus Kanjur Marg Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Rd, (E), Mumbai–400 042 Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1981E Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ms. Shraddha Jain, Ars Revenue By : Shri Vivek A Perampurna, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.0222

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A Perampurna, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14CSection 156Section 244ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds: 1. Transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA (3) 1.1 The learned DCIT/ Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 144C/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at an income ... assessed at ₹ 141,821,938/– and transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 69,416,669/- was made. 013. Assessee preferred an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel – I, Mumbai [ the Ld DRP] who passed direction on 05/9/2017 and rejected the objections of the assessee. Consequently, on 27/10/2017, the learned assessing officer passed

Emerson Network Power (India) P.Ltd, Thane vs. Addl CIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1771/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

13/01/2015 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, pursuant to the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 30/12/2013 & 29/12/2014 respectively for the A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. M/s. Vertiv Energy

Emerson Network Power (India) P. Ltd, Thane vs. JCIT RG 1, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1975/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)