“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

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT (OSD) 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1124/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40

under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the I.T. Act in pursuance of direction given by learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Grounds of appeal urged by the assessee give rise to following issues :- a) Addition relating to transfer pricing adjustment b) Disallowance made under section

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessment years. 9. Aggrieved by the draft assessment orders for assessment years 2011-2012 to 2013-2014, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP passed orders giving directions to the TPO / AO. The DRP deleted the TP addition made towards `Commercial Services (IT Support

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Lenovo (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 treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 452/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.452/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

144C of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2012-13 in pursuance of directions given by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture, import, marketing, distribution and export of information technology systems including input, output devices

Dy CIT (International Taxation)-1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bluebay Mauritus Investment Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1370/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 66Section 74(1)Section 80Section 90(2)

years. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee had also moved with the DRP a rectification application u/rule 13 of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 r.w sec. 144C(5) of the Act, dated 11-1-2017, seeking a direction for carry forward of the b/forward Long term ... capital losses. After considering the issue, the DRP vide its order passed u/rule 13 of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009, dated 01-12-2017, had concluded, that following the rationale adopted for allowing the carry forward of brought forward STCL, the Long term capital losses amounting

Black Knight India Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on ground no

ITA 230/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 230/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Black Knight India Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 6-3-1192-2-1, Htc Commissioner Of Towers, Kundanbagh, Income Tax, Begumpet, Circle – 1(1)(2), Hyderabad, Vs. Bangalore. Telangana – 500 016. Pan: Aaccl2956K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 26-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Ao In National E-Assessment For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Final Assessment Order Dated 30 March 2021 (And Received By The Appellant On 30 March 2021) Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Chidambaram

Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92C

read with sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), pursuant to the directions dated 5 February 2021 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('DRP') u/s 144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 22 October 2019 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') u/s 92CA

Alcon Laboratories India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 726/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Alcon Laboratories (India) The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of 11Th Floor, Rmz Azure, Income Tax, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 092. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aacca3430F Appellant Respondent : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/01/2017 Passed By The Ld.Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2012-13 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant”), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao”] In Pursuance To The Directions Issued By Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 144C

learned AO”] in pursuance to the directions issued by Hon'ble Page 2 of 20 IT(TP)A No. 726/Bang/2017 Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”), under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act") on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances

M/S Adc India Communications Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 79/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

reason that this company is into manufacturing and distribution activities and no segmental details is available for the distribution activities. 3.1 The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directed the AO / TPO to include Dandapani & Co. in the list of comparables. The DRP examined the segmental details and observed that the said

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Adc India Communications Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

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

144C(13) of the Act, for assessment year 2011-12 on following grounds of appeal: Revenue’s appeal “1. The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel are opposed to the law and not on the facts and circumstance of the case. 2. The ld.DRP erred in holding that the size ... international jurisprudence requires seeking similar comparable companies. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel may be reversed and that assessment order be restored. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any other grounds on or before

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

Mumbai by order under section 92CA(3) of The Act dated 31st October, 2016, was incorporated. The draft order was objected before Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (DRP), who passed direction on 27th September, 2017 and consequently the impugned assessment order was passed wherein the income of the assessee ... 92CA(3) of Adjustment in Arms Length Price of Rs.2,19,64,47,328/- The learned Assessing Officer ('AO') / Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')/ Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in passing the aforesaid assessment order dated November 30, 2017 which was received by the assessee on November 30, 2017) without

Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 7116/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd. Income Tax, 10(1)(1), Chakala, Andheri (E), R.No.209, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach0964P

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92(2)Section 92BSection 92C

initio. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer in pursuance of the direction of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer and as confirmed by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, has erred in making adjustment of Rs. 23,42,64,637/- in respect of certain specified domestic transactions. 4. Without prejudice to the above ... case of the appellant is bad in law. No tax evasion 5. The Ld. Assessing Officer, Transfer Pricing Officer and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in not appreciating the fact that as a result of the impugned specified domestic transactions, there was no tax evasion in as much

Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1579/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegodrej Consumer Vs. Dcit, Cc-14(1)(1) Products Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Llp, Esplanade House, Mumbai-400020. 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcg3365J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr & Mr.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144(C)(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To Directions Of The Drp.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Farrokh.V. Irani.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR

Section 1Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 801CSection 80ISection 921

passed in pursuance to directions of the DRP.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. NON TRANSFER PRICING ISSUES 1. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the M/s Godrej Consumer Products Ltd, Mumbai. action of the Assessing Officer in computing the deduction under Section 801C / 801E ... sundry balances written back forming part of the 'Other Income' of such eligible units and in reducing the deduction claimed accordingly. 2.The learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the action of th undertakings to the eligible undertakings of the Appellant, while computing the deduction u/s 80IC/ 801E

M/S. Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 144CSection 92(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

passes a draft order of assessment against which, the Assessee has a right to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s.144C of the Act. Under section 144C(5), the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) shall issue the directions, as it thinks fit, for the guidance

Pragati Trading Co., Mumbai vs. ITO - 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is disposed of by treating the same as withdrawn

ITA 2063/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pragati Trading Co. Vs. Ito 27(2)(5) B/154, Kanara Business Centre, Mumbai 400073 Off Ghatkopar Link Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400075 Appellant. Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri SubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad

Section 2Section 3Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 9

manner as may be prescribed. The second proviso deals with the cases, where the matter is before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The third proviso deals with cases, where the issue is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The filing of the declaration

Dy CIT (It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Pramerica Aspf II Cyprus, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6751/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 292B

with effect from 1st April 2020. Explaining this amendment, Memorandum Explaining Amendments in the Finance Bill 2020 states as follows: Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Assessment year: 2014-15 Page 4 of 6 Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies

Tarkett Flooring India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 201/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.201/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Tarkett Flooring India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.460, 2Nd Cross, Circle – 7(1)(1), Krishna Temple Road, Bengaluru. Binnamangala 1St Stage, Bengaluru-560 038. Pan : Aadct 9947 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Sumeet Khuranna, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Sections 144C(13), 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('the Act'), pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (the 'Learned Panel') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That

B. Barun Medical (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7417/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

30/12/2018 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 12/09/2018 respectively for the A.Y.2014-15. 2 M/s. B. Braun Medical (India