← 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

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 is partly allowed

ITA 8229/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate; & MsFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

Income Tax, Circle -16(2), New Delhi („Ld. AO‟) and the final assessment order passed, on the directions of the Hon‟ble Dispute Resolution Panel („Hon‟ble DRP‟), by the Ld. AO are bad in law. 2. The Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in determining

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “I-2”, New Delhi

For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Shrivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

adjustment regarding Advertising and marketing expenses (AMP Adjustment). (d). Ground No’s. 22 to 26 – Regarding the erroneous finding given the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the issue of AMP adjustment. (e). Ground No’s. 27 to 35 – Regarding the applicability of the Profit Split Method ... Floods in Chennai 9. Aggrieved with the additions / disallowances proposed in the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (herein referred to as the “DRP”). The DRP disposed of the objections preferred by the Assessee vide directions dated 27.01.2021 and confirmed the additions / disallowances proposed

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. JCIT, Hisar

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

ITA 619/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 254Section 92C

order of the TPO, the draft assessment order was framed by the AO on 31/3/2014. Thereafter, the assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel on 29.4.2014. After providing due opportunity to the assessee, the ld. DRP vide order dated 31/12/2014 has disposed off the objections of the assessee. Taking into ... submitted that Section 144C was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, w.r.e.f. 1/4/2009 for which the caption was mentioned as ‘Reference to Dispute Resolution Panel’. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has availed the provisions and procedure of Section 144C by filing objections before the DRP and thus

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4487/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 American Express (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs Jcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Special Range-I, Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaaca8163F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40

deleted. Part I - Transfer pricing grounds of appeal 2. That Learned CIT(A), even after noting that relief granted by Learned Dispute Resolution Panel for A Y 2009-10 in Appellant's own case is in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special, Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3769/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 American Express (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs Jcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Special Range-I, Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaaca8163F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40

deleted. Part I - Transfer pricing grounds of appeal 2. That Learned CIT(A), even after noting that relief granted by Learned Dispute Resolution Panel for A Y 2009-10 in Appellant's own case is in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

JCIT, Special, Range-1, New Delhi vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3148/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 American Express (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs Jcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Special Range-I, Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaaca8163F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40

deleted. Part I - Transfer pricing grounds of appeal 2. That Learned CIT(A), even after noting that relief granted by Learned Dispute Resolution Panel for A Y 2009-10 in Appellant's own case is in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi vs. American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2834/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 American Express (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs Jcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Special Range-I, Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaaca8163F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40

deleted. Part I - Transfer pricing grounds of appeal 2. That Learned CIT(A), even after noting that relief granted by Learned Dispute Resolution Panel for A Y 2009-10 in Appellant's own case is in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, the Cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2714/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 American Express (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs Jcit, Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Special Range-I, Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110002. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aaaca8163F Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40

deleted. Part I - Transfer pricing grounds of appeal 2. That Learned CIT(A), even after noting that relief granted by Learned Dispute Resolution Panel for A Y 2009-10 in Appellant's own case is in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

Nectar Lifesciences Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle- 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the additions, made by the Assessing

ITA 567/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80

dated 29.11.2018 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) for the Assessment Year 2014-15 in pursuance of the directions given by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel vide order dated 20.09.2018. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition On Transfer Pricing Adjustment at Rs.33 ... appeal reads as under: 1.1 The assessment order passed by the Ld. AO in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) is a vitiated order as the Hon’ble DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming additions made

International Management Group (Uk) Limited, London vs. ACIT (International Taxation) - 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 118/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) International Management Vs. Acit (International Group (Uk) Limited Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vatika Business Centre, New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Business Suites No.24 & 25, First India Place, Sushant Lok-I, Phase-I, Block-B, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Haryana- 122 002 Pan No. Aabci 9309 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rishabh Malhotra, C.A. Revenue By Mrs Vandana Ramchandran, Cit Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), (Intl. Taxn.) New Delhi Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Pursuant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), (Intl. Taxn.) New Delhi under section 144C(5) of the Act pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) – I, New Delhi order dated 29.10.2020 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) erred in not appreciating that the receipts of Rs. 7,67,57,010/- are effectively connected with the admitted PE and is accordingly to be taxed

Exlservices.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7392/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing) Exlservices.Com (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., Large Taxpayer Unit, 414, 4Th Floor, Plot No.10 Circle – 1, Nbcc Plaza & 11, Dlp Jasola Tower-B, Pushp Vihar, Dda District Centre, Saket, New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan No. Aaace 5174 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Shri Saksham Singhal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 155JSection 271(1)(c)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in disregarding the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel for assessment year (s) 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... year of depreciation claimed by the assessee on the goodwill. The learned assessing officer disallowed the depreciation, which was deleted by the learned dispute resolution panel. It is apparent that in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2010 – 11 in ITA number 302/del/2015 the coordinate bench relying

Dhr Holding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 953/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-3, New Delhi / Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) erred in determining, and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - I, New Delhi (“Hon’ble DRP”) erred in confirming additions amounting to INR 9,15,19,446 to the taxable income of the Appellant

At & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) - National E-Assesment Order, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 489/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

75/Del/2021 AT&T Global Network Services India Pvt. Ltd. Pricing Officer (“Ld. TPO”) [in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)], erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 17,67,56,395 holding that the international transaction pertaining to receipt of intra-group services

Kehin Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5189/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

grievances of the assessee read as under: “1. The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’)/Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and consequently the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) have erred in law and on facts and circumstances of appellant’s case, in making a transfer pricing (‘TP’) adjustment of Rs.4 ... development of the business, the claim the assessee needs to be re-examined with the details furnished. This is more so when learned dispute resolution panel accepted that there is a higher depreciation claim in the case of assessee compared to the comparable companies. In view of this

York Tech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-25(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. and MsFor Respondent: Ms. Meera Srivastava, CIT-DR and Shri M. Baranwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92B

assessee against the impugned order dated 26.04.2021, passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B in pursuance of direction given by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi u/s.144C(5) vide order dated 09.03.2021 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3702/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 10Section 10ASection 271(1)

succeeding Assessment Year and extensions were not specifically and independently approved by the STPI authority. 3. Assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and pursuant to the directions dated 30/9/2010 passed by the Ld. DRP, learned Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order on 28/12/2010 by disallowing

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5554/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920(3)Section 92D

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. 2. In ITA No. 5553/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/ TPO’s action of making an adjustment ... initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 3. In ITA No. 5554/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/ TPO’s action of making an adjustment

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5553/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920(3)Section 92D

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. 2. In ITA No. 5553/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/ TPO’s action of making an adjustment ... initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 3. In ITA No. 5554/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/ TPO’s action of making an adjustment

Goodyear India Ltd., Faridabad vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2016-17 Goodyear India Ltd., Vs Neac, Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh, Delhi. Faridabad, Haryana-121001. Pan-Aaacg3511H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Surendra Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234B

BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The assessee has raised ... following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the impugned order of assessment framed by the assessing officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP') under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income

Bbc Global News Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Circle- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 395/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kantassessment Year : 2014-15 Bbc Global News Ltd., Vs Dcit(International Naveen Jhunjhunwala, Taxation), Circle-1(1)(2), Bbc Global News India Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi. 6Th Floor, Hindustan Times House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaccb5483H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Ankita Mondal, Ca Respondent By Sh.Bhaskar Goswami, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2021

Section 90

assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order of Ld. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi and direction of Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi dated 26.09.2017. An application has been filed on behalf of the assessee dated 26.07.2021 seeking withdrawal of appeal. The contents