← 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

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

order on 14/12/2017 post incorporating the TP adjustments made by the TPO. Against the draft assessment order the assessee filed objections before the dispute resolution panel (DRP). The DRP wide direction dated 15.02.2021 upheld the action of the TPO. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP the AO passed final

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1106/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

14/12/2016 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 05/12/2016 respectively for the A.Y.2012-13. 2 M/s. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group

Netapp India Marketing and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri G.C. Srivastava, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act for the assessment year 2016-17 in pursuance of directions given by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal containing 13 grounds. However, at the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. confined his argument on the following issues

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

when the original assessment order has been passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), on the basis of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). 15. We may gainfully refer to the provision of section 263 in this regard. 17 A.Y. 2014-15 “263. (1) The Principal Commissioner ... file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,— (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if— (a) the assessee

M/S. Biocon Research Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2612/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)

r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). IT(TP)A No.2612/Bang/2019 Biocon Biologics Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 9 2. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to the following issues

M/S. Nsl Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 262/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.262/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nsl Sugars Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 60/1, 2Nd Cross V. Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Residency Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aagcs0938Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Am : This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Dcit Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 30.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. Brief Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Sugar & Molasses Etc. It Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-2017 On 30.11.2016 With Returned Loss Of Rs.78,24,50,827. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. Reference Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) For Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Specified Domestic Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee. The Tpo Passed An Order U/S 92Ca On 30.10.2019 Proposing The Adjustment Of Rs.96,57,60,845. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed A Draft Assessment Order On 23.12.2019 Incorporating The Tp Adjustment Proposed By The Tpo. In Addition, The Ao

For Appellant: Sri.T.Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

disallowance of Rs.5,66,93,000 on account of deduction claimed u/s 43B of the Act. The assessee raised objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO and sustained the additions made by the AO on the corporate tax issue

Strides Pharma Science Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7992/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Akshita BhandariFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

earlier years i.e., in assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2014–15 and the same was upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). Following the approach adopted in the earlier years, the TPO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that imputation of interest on share ... petitioner has at the beginning of today‟s hearing itself undertaken to withdraw its objection on the issue of jurisdiction before the Dispute Resolution Panel. This was accepted by us before considering the issue on the merits. Moreover, this petition was filed on April 24, 2013, challenging the impugned orders

Prakash Dugar, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6439/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

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

Mrs. Shalu Ajay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 540/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
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

Credit Suisse Consulting (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

619/Mum/2014

ITA 619/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2039/MUM/2020[1989-90]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mmubai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2038/MUM/2020[1988-89]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2037/MUM/2020[1987-88]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2036/MUM/2020[1986-87]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2035/MUM/2020[1985-86]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1985-86

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2034/MUM/2020[1984-85]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1984-85

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2033/MUM/2020[1983-84]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1983-84

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2030/MUM/2020[1989-90]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Shri Kalyanji Bhagat by Jayantilal K. Bhagat L/H, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2024/MUM/2020[1983-84]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 1983-84

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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

Kalyanji G Bhagat, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4275/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 2Section 3Section 4

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