“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

Manitowoc Crane Group Asia Pte Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2522/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. K. Narasimha Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manitowoc Crane Group Vs Acit (International Asia Pte. Ltd. . Taxation), C/O. Potain India, Circle – 2(2)(1), 72-76, Mundhwa Industrial New Delhi Estate, Mundhwa, Pune-411036 Pan – Aafcm 0845 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shubhangi Arora, A.R. Revenue By Dr. Prabhakant, Cit Date Of Hearing: 25/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2021 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(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 2, New Delhi Order Dated 07.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2012- 13. A.Y. 2012-13 2 2. Before Us, Assessee Has Vide Email Dated 11Th March, 2021 Seeks Withdrawal Of Appeal As It Has Opted For Vivad Se Vishwas (Vsv) 2020 & Has Filed The Declaration (Form-1) & Undertaking (Form-2) Scheme & Department Had Issued Form- 3. The Assessee Therefore Seeks To Withdraw The Appeal, To Which The Revenue Has No Objection.

Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) – 2, New Delhi order dated 07.12.2016 for Assessment Year 2012- 13. A.Y. 2012-13 2 2. Before us, assessee has vide email dated

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT International Taxation - 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 131/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyasstt. Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C

income tax, circle-(3) (1) (2), International Taxation, New Delhi (“learned Assessing Officer”) pursuant to the directions dated 16/11/2020 given by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-2, New Delhi (“Ld. DRP”), in the case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (“the assessee”), for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi vs. Escorts Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 398/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by upholding the action of AO/TFor Respondent: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of

Section 115J

disallowance of royalty expenses of ₹ 1,39,00,000/- and other additions . As the assessee did not file objection before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), within the stipulated period of 30 days, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 29/04/2013 determining total income

Escorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 7623/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

For Appellant: 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by upholding the action of AO/TFor Respondent: 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of

Section 115J

Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 483/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

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

under:- 1. “That the impugned order of assessment framed by the assessing officer (“AO”) 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-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’), is bad in law, volatile

Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2381/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144C

circumstances of the case, and in law; 1. The Assessment Order passed in pursuance of the' directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') is a vitiated order as the Hon'ble DRP erred both on facts and in law in partially confirming the addition made

Exlservice.Com(India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 8452/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

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 ... held that depreciation was admissible on goodwill amounting to 769,789,365 and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The learned dispute resolution panel deleted the disallowance following its own direction issued in assessment year 2010 – 11. Therefore, the learned assessing officer is in appeal before us. 39. The learned

Amadeus India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7376/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92F

existence of a "transaction" for brand promotion is not supported by contents of those clauses. The appellant's objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, which we have quoted above, are acceptable. These clauses nowhere provide that the appellant will be incurring brand promotion expenses for and on behalf ... made a subject matter of transfer pricing and subjected to tax." 8.3 As held above, the appellant has raised objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel that none of the above clauses of the agreement make it mandatory for the appellant to incur the brand promotion expenses

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

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

ITA 5436/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Exlservice.Com (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Ltu, Circle-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 5435/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Cairn Energy Hydrocarbons Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6316/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP

Hcl Technologies Ltd. (As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Geometric Ltd. ), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8309/DEL/2018[201`4-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Arpit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP : This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi dated 10.09.2018. . 2 ITA-8309/Del/2018 2. The learned counsel for the assessee, vide email dated 24.02.2021, has requested for withdrawal

New Skies Satellites Bv, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 56/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 New Skies Satellites Bv, Vs Dcit, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, Gold View, Circle-2(2)(2), International Corporate Tower, Tower-B, Sector- Taxation, New Delhi-110001 42, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn1866C Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Dr. Prabha Kant, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2021

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘the Panel’) erred in not directing the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO’) to pass appropriate orders holding that the Appellant is not liable

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7510/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

erred in passing the impugned assessment order dated October 03, 2017 pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP) thereby computing the total income of the appellant at Rs.1,380,032,000 as against returned loss of Rs. 62,390,267; and 1.2. That ... respectively on account of advances written off. 9. The taxpayer carried the matter before the ld. Disputes Resolution Panel (DRP) by way of objections who has upheld the order passed by the TPO/AO. Feeling aggrieved, the taxpayer has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

ITA 7509/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Deepark Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92C(3)

Roxtec India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3840/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar, CIT/DR

Section 144CSection 154

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by the learned Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions dated 14/3/2017 passed by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-2, New Delhi (“Ld. DRP”) in the case of M/s Roxtec India private limited (“the assessee”), for the assessment year 2013-14, assessee ... find any infirmity in the order of the learned assessing officer/transfer pricing officer as well as the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel in rejecting the resale price method adopted by the assessee and adopting transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method. 13. It not the case

Park Global Holdings Incorporated, United States of America vs. DCIT Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 8300/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-International Taxation-2(2)(2), New Delhi, in pursuant to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2 ITA No. 8300/Del./2019 3. The learned counsel for the assesee, vide its letter dated 4th January, 2021, requested for withdrawal of the appeal

Boeing International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 2, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3695/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 144Section 192Section 40Section 9

appeal are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts, in law and in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. DRP’)/ Ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 25,10,56,019/- under section ... holding that same are in nature of Fee for Technical Services and no tax was deducted at source by the assessee. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected the objection raised by the assessee on this issue. In the final Assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of Rs.25

Ge Pacific Pte. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 945/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

assessment years 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2010-11, 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively, pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 3. We have heard both the parties through Video Conferencing. 3 ITA Nos. 631/Del./2017; 760/Del./2017; 761/Del./2017; 766/Del./2017; 943/Del./2017

Ge Pacific Pte. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 943/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]