← 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

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

30/10/2017 respectively 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-2 (DRP in short) u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 29/11/2016 & 05/09/2017 respectively for the A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14. 1.1. As identical issues are involved

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

No.574/Bang/2015 I. Transfer Pricing 1. The learned Assessing Officer ("AO"), the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in law and facts of the case in proposing a transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA of the Income ... rely upon the directions (dated 26 December, 2014) passed under section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

No.574/Bang/2015 I. Transfer Pricing 1. The learned Assessing Officer ("AO"), the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in law and facts of the case in proposing a transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA of the Income ... rely upon the directions (dated 26 December, 2014) passed under section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

No.574/Bang/2015 I. Transfer Pricing 1. The learned Assessing Officer ("AO"), the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in law and facts of the case in proposing a transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA of the Income ... rely upon the directions (dated 26 December, 2014) passed under section 144C (5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (''DRP") and grounds of appeal filed in Form 35A before the DRP which was disregarded by the Learned Assessing officer ("Ld. AO") / Learned Transfer

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Communication Limited, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

assessee by Addl.CIT. The draft assessment order dated 28/12/2010 for the impugned assessment year was framed by Addl.CIT. After the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20/10/2011 was passed by the Addl. CIT. The ld.Counsel

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1106/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

assessee by Addl.CIT. The draft assessment order dated 28/12/2010 for the impugned assessment year was framed by Addl.CIT. After the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20/10/2011 was passed by the Addl. CIT. The ld.Counsel

Tata Communications Limited(Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT Range - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

assessee by Addl.CIT. The draft assessment order dated 28/12/2010 for the impugned assessment year was framed by Addl.CIT. After the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20/10/2011 was passed by the Addl. CIT. The ld.Counsel

DCIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communication Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1657/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

assessee by Addl.CIT. The draft assessment order dated 28/12/2010 for the impugned assessment year was framed by Addl.CIT. After the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20/10/2011 was passed by the Addl. CIT. The ld.Counsel

Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6781/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

assessee by Addl.CIT. The draft assessment order dated 28/12/2010 for the impugned assessment year was framed by Addl.CIT. After the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20/10/2011 was passed by the Addl. CIT. The ld.Counsel

Tata Communication Ltd. (Formerly Known As Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T.RG.1(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7514/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7514 /मुं/2011 ("न. व. 2007-08 ) आअसं. 6781/मुं/2012 ("न.व. 2008-09) आअसं. 572/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1106/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) Tata Communications Ltd. (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Bhavan, M.G Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aaccv-2808-C बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range 1(3), Room No.540, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 1657/मुं/2014 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 1561/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) The Dcit -1(3) Room No.564,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Harsh M. Kapadia and K.DamaniaFor Respondent: Shri. Vatsalya Saxena& Shri B.K.Bagchi
Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(3)

assessee by Addl.CIT. The draft assessment order dated 28/12/2010 for the impugned assessment year was framed by Addl.CIT. After the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 20/10/2011 was passed by the Addl. CIT. The ld.Counsel

Asus India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 9 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7831/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194CSection 40

25/10/2019 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 12/09/2019 respectively for the A.Y.2015-16. 2 M/s. Asus India Pvt. Ltd., 1.1. The ground No.1

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

115JB of the Act. The assessee proposed to file an appeal before CIT(A) as against the forum of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the said assessment order. Thereafter, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the I. T. Act was completed. The assessee is engaged

Intelenet Global Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6948/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

dated 23/09/2016 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 15/07/2016 for the A.Y.2012-13. 2 M/s. Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Intelenet

Ingersoll - Rand International (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 549/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.549/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

dated 30.1.2015 passed by the A.O. for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C in pursuance of directions given by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). In the appeal filed by the assessee, following issues are contested:- a) Addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment b) Disallowance

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Ingersoll - Rand International India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.549/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 40

dated 30.1.2015 passed by the A.O. for assessment year 2010-11 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C in pursuance of directions given by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). In the appeal filed by the assessee, following issues are contested:- a) Addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment b) Disallowance

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 9711/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 40Section 40a

assessment at the total income of INR 47,90,64,320 as against 'NIL' income declared. 2. That the Assessing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") ought to have held that the Appellant has no income chargeable to tax in India either under the Act or under the provisions ... other expenses were disallowed by the Ld. AO not being of operating nature. 7. The assessee filed objection before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) against the draft assessment order. The Hon’ble DRP vide its order dated 29.08.2019 upheld most of the findings of the Ld. AO including

M/S Endemol India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6780/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1601, Grandeur Veera Desai Income Tax, Central Circle Road Andheri, West, Vs. 16(1), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce5452G M/S Endemol India Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1601, Grandeur Veera Desai Income Tax, Central Circle Road Andheri, West, Vs. 16(1), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar Respondent By : Shri Satya Pinisetty, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.2.2022

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, DR

where the above transfer pricing adjustments were made. As the assessee did not file any objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, he passed a final order under section 143(3) of the Act on 30th March, 2016 at ₹8,42,07,310/-. 08. The assessee is aggrieved with

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3353/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA
Section 92BSection 92C

2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Tax effect Grounds of Appeal relating to each Ground of appeal The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred 1. in law and in facts in not considering TNMM documentation and benchmarking as submitted and discussed by your appellant. The Learned

M/S Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited (Formerly Sami Labs Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for both the years stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2764/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Sami –Sabinsa Group Ltd. (Formerly The Deputy Sami Labs Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 19/1 & 19/2, I Main, Income Tax, Ii Phase, Circle 6 (1)(1), Peenya Industrial Area, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aadcs2549E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Bhavya Bansal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Undated For A.Y. 2013-14 & 23.10.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore. The Above Appeals Are Disposed Of By Way Of A Common Order As Common Issues Arises On Identical Facts. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Are Reproducing The Grounds Raised By Assessee For Assessment Year 2013-14. Page 2 Of 7 It(Tp)A Nos. 2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CA
Section 92BSection 92C

2764/Bang/2017 & 3353/Bang/2018 Tax effect Grounds of Appeal relating to each Ground of appeal The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred 1. in law and in facts in not considering TNMM documentation and benchmarking as submitted and discussed by your appellant. The Learned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance (I) Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4608/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Diva Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmandy.Cit, Circle-14(1)(2), M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd., बनाम Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Vs First International Financial Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 8Th Floor, Plot Nos. C-54 & C-55, Mumbai-400020 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं/.Pan /Tan No: Aabca3223B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Madhur Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Senthil Kumaran

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Senthil Kumaran

invariably put to test and inquiry by the Authorities of the Department and through the process of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Tribunal at various stages, the assessee has a cumbersome task of compliance and it has to satisfy the Authorities that what