“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

Oppo Mobiles India Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2549/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2548/Del/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, Tower-B, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aabc09247K बनाम Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Stay Application No.287/Del/2025 (In Ita No.2548/D/2022)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144Cof the I. T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Oppo Mobiles India Pvt Ltd, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi

ITA 2548/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

Brown- Forman Worldwide Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Int, Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 2329/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrichalla Nagendra Prasad & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRICHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Li & Fung (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), New Delhi

ITA 1820/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthili & Fung (India) P. Ltd., 202-206 Tolstoy House, Connaught Place, Delhi 110001 Pan: Aaacl-1663-M बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Delhi आअसं.1820/दिल्ली/2022(नि.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: S/Shri Neeraj Jain, Ramit Katyal, Dhruv Seth &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144C of the I.T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel 6 ITA No 1820/Del/2022 (AY 2018-19) ITA No. 3819/Del/2024 (AY 2020-21) SA Nos. 449 & 450/Del/2025 (DRP) to work: The provisions of this

Vatika Seven Elements P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all ITA Nos

ITA 9862/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Express Freight Consortium, Assessment Unit,Income Tax C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Vs. Dept,Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Delhi. Bhawan, Pan No.Aaaae8440R Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144C of the I.T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self-contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and / or Assessing Officer (AO) and / or Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred in making the transfer pricing adjustment of INR 46,45,29,035 to determine an arm’s length price ... dated 23 October 2025 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’), pursuant to directions passed by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRP’) dated 10 September 2025 is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed being barred

Kunshan Q Tech Microelectronics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 5356/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 148Section 153

orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) [Draft Assessment Order and Final Assessment Order), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) as well as the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice and thus, void-ab-initio. 2. That on the facts

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int) Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6570/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailorient Overseas Container Line Limited, C/O Oocl (India) Private Limited, Icc Chambers, 5Th Floor, Saki Vihar Road, Opp. Santogen Silk Mills, Powai, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400072 Pan : Aaaco5679E V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 3(2)(2), ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 244ASection 44B

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 02.07.2025 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai, (“learned DRP”), under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2023-24. 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee ... Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pursuant to the directions dated 02 July 2025 of the Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP') on the following grounds, each of which are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Teva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Industries India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4197/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalteva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Vs Assessment Unit, Income Industries India Private Limited, Tax Department/Deputy 8Th Floor, C-Wing Time Square, Commissioner Of Income Andherikurla Road, Marol Naka, Tax, Circle 25(1), Opp Mittal Industrial Estate C. R. Building, Delhi- Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059, 110001 Maharashtra, India Pan: Bnspk7225H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Sohamdua, Adv& Sh. Abhiudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153r

submission 2. The present appeals raise the issue whether, in cases governed by section 144C, the time consumed in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is required to be subsumed within the limitation prescribed under section 153, or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory mechanism with ... Assessment Order was extended by 12 months under Section 153(4) of the Act. 4 Objections filed by the Appellant before the 27.10.2023 Dispute Resolution Panel in Form 35A within 30 days of receipt of the draft order. in compliance with Section 144C(2) of the Act. 5 Directions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Bg Exploration, Mumbai

ITA 107/DDN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 246A(1)(b)Section 92C

foregoing proposed 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.107 & 105/DDN/2024 assessments. This followed the assessee’s identical objections filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel “DRP” whose respective directions upheld the foregoing adjustments. And that the Assessing Officer then framed his final first round assessments on 23rd February and 30th October

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Dehradun vs. Bg Exploration Producdtion India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 105/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 246A(1)(b)Section 92C

Sicpa India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-23(2), New Delhi

ITA 8456/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.598 & 8456/दिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144C of the I.T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Sicpa India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 23(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 598/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.598 & 8456/धिल्ली/2019 (नि.व. 2014-15 & 2015-16)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

time consumed in the proceedings undertaken after draft assessment order under section 144C of the I.T. Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Assessing officer get subsumed within the time limitation prescribed under section 153 of the I.T. Act or whether section 144C operates as a special statutory ... self contained code in itself with regard to assessment of eligible assessee and prescribes entire procedure and time line for the framework of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to work: The provisions of this section cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the entire scheme unworkable. As such

Swatch Group (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(2), C.R. Building

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

ITA 5929/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22] Swatch Group (India) Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, 4Th Floor, Rectangle-I, Plot No. D- Vs Circle 22(2), 4, Saket District Centre, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Delhi, New Delhi-110017. 110002. Pan- Aafcs7516R Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 92C

read with Sections 144C(13), r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order dated 09.09.2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. ITA No.- 5929/Del/2024 Swatch Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2. Brief facts of the case ... extent it confirms the additions/ disallowances made in the assessment order. 2. That the Ld. AO/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO")/ Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR. 22,35,89,000/-in respect of the advertising and marketing

Alcon Laboratories (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 1899/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 144CSection 37Section 40

above draft order. 4. Aggrieved with the same the assessee preferred an objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore [DRP]. The ld. DRP passed its direction u/s. 144C(5) of the Act on 22 June 2024. According to the direction para No. 2.2.8 the disallowance ... expenditure could not be Page 27 of 29 allowed to be assessee. Accordingly, the same was disallowed. When the assessee approached the learned dispute resolution panel, claim of the assessee that it submitted certain documents on 27 September 2022 and the remand report from the learned assessing officer was called

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd March, 2016 the assessee stated that they were not filing any application with the Dispute Resolution Panel against the Draft Assessment Order and would prefer an appeal with the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, a Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

Red Hat India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3853/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254Section 92C

read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016–17, pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel–2, Mumbai. The appeal arises in the second round of proceedings, the matter having earlier travelled to this Tribunal, which had partly set aside ... December 2019, whereby the total adjustment was reduced to INR 30,31,89,144. The assessee, being aggrieved, carried the matter before the Dispute Resolution Panel, which issued its directions, pursuant to which a final assessment order dated 26 March 2021 came to be passed. 6. The assessee challenged