“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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Respondent-Assessee with its AE; (Hi) the TPO determined upward adjustment of Rs. 56,30,78,638/-; (iv) the Respondent- Assessee approached Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). which declined to interfere with the transfer pricing adjustment made by the AO; (v) the Respondent- Assessee thereafter approached the 1TAT and the ITAT

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Itochu India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2244/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Lakshmi Narayanan, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 92C

free on board value of exports of Rs.1,202.96 crores made by the Indian manufacturer to overseas third party customers. The Dispute Resolution Panel reduced the mark-up of 5 per cent of free on board value of exports to 3 per cent. The Assessing Officer computed the assessee

M/S. Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

Altimetrik India Private Limited ("the Appellant"), respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal before your Honours: 1. The directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the order of the learned Assessing Officer ("AO"), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, are bad in law and on facts ... ratio of period of usage of assets. Aggrieved by the addition proposed in the DOA, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 4. The DRP held that the assessee’s claim is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Explanation 7 to section 43(1) read

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6303/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common challenge in all the above captioned appeals is that the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer [AO] in initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act without appreciating that there

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6302/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Bentley Nevada Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6300/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Dsv Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 922/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledvs Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional/Joint/ A-203, The Qube, Cts Assistant No. 1489, Mv Road, Commissioner Of Marol, Andheri East, Income Tax, National Mumbai – 400059. E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5306L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Karishmaprataphekar.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.KarishmaPrataphekar.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

filed the appeal against the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act in pursuance to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Transfer

M/S Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 608/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 608/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Robert Bosch The Deputy Engineering & Business Commissioner Of Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, #123, Industrial Layout, Large Tax Payers Unit, Hosur Road, Koramangala, Circle 1, Bangalore – 560095. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacr7108R Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 445/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 20-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 By The Ld.Dcit, Ltu, Circle -1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12. In Revenue’S Appeal, The Following Grounds Are Raised. “1. The Directions Of Drp Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Officer' or `A0')/the learned Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing —2(2)), Bangalore (`Transfer Pricing Officer' or 'TP0') and the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (the `Panel'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Corporate Tax related Matters (Other than ... satisfy the test of comparability in respect of the Software Development ("IT") and IT enabled services ("ITeS") segment of the Appellant. However, the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP" or "the learned Panel") did not accept the Appellant's submissions for some comparables and for the remaining comparables the learned DRP excluded

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Robert Bosch Engineering & Business Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 80J

Hapag-Lloyd Ag, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 972/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Hapag-Lloyd Ag The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O Hapag-Lloyd India Pvt. Income-Tax (International Ltd. Taxation), Range -2(2)(2), Room No. 1606, 16 Th Floor, 403 & 404, Satellite Gazebo, Vs. A Wing, 4Th Floor, Guru Air India Building, Nariman Hargoindji Marg, Andheri Point, Mumbai-400 021 (East), Mumbai-400 093 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacfe7262L Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Advocates, Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 143Section 234Section 270Section 270ASection 44BSection 90(2)

Learned Assessing Officer/ AO ) u/s 143 (3) rws 144C (13) of The Income tax Act [ The Act] pursuance to the directions of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (the learned DRP), issued on 13/3/2021 wherein the total income of the assessee Hapag-Lloyd AG; AY 17-18 was assessed ... merely academic so, do not require any adjudication. 010. With respect to ground Nos. 8 to 11, it was stated that the learned Disputed Resolution Panel failed to appreciate the written submission of the assessee. He submitted that ₹25,06,606/- has been deposited in the PAN number

Procter & Gamble Health Ltd.(Formerly Known As Merck Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2062/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Before Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 271

samples.” 3. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order restricted the disallowance from 50% to 20% following the order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for assessment year 2013-14. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “Similar issue has come up before

Nagravision Sa, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2(2)(2) Internatioanl Taxation, New Delhi

In the result the Appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 140/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Nagravision S.A. Vs Dcit C/O. Ernst & Young Llp, Circle-2(2)(2), Golf View Corporate International Taxation, Tower,Tower B, Sector 42, New Delhi Golf Course Road, Gurugram Pan : Aadcn6048B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Cit Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 Order Per N. K. Choudhry, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 270Section 270ASection 9

read with section 144C( 13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), pursuant to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Delhi („the Ld. DRP‟), rectified vide order dated 11 January 2021 passed u/s 154 read with section

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

from advertising its products as per the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Amendment Bill. 8. Thereafter, the Assessee obtained directions from the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel vide an order dated 5 September 2017 and the assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) read with section 144C

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Mr. Sunil Gajanan Chitre, Palghar vs. CIT (A)-3, Palghar

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

ITA 2405/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

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

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed quashing reopening of assessment and deleting addition on the merits

ITA 7432/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Standard Chartered Bank The Dy. Director Of Income- Crescenzo, Tax(International Taxation)- 7Th Floor, C38-39, 2(1), Vs. G Block Bandra Kurla Complex , 1St Floor, Scindia House, Bandra East N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 038 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcs4681D Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 2(47)Section 45Section 50Section 50C

added for Assessment Year 2005-06. The draft assessment order was accordingly passed. 6. Assessee challenged it before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [The LD DRP] that issued direction on 25th September 2012. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel directed that as the assessee has failed to provide evidence ... months of the agreement to sale. Therefore, according to him, the order of the learned Assessing Officer and the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel are sustainable in law. He also Standard Chartered Bank; AY 2005-06 supported that only the registered sale deed results into transfer