“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

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Mumbai ["learned DRP'], under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since ... grounds: - "Ground 1 - General On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel- II (DRP') and the final assessment order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai (DCIT

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Mumbai [“/earned DRP’’], under section ITAs No.1236/Mum/2016, 577/Mum/2017, 7393/Mum/2017 & 7294/Mum /2018 | (A-Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) 7 144C ... grounds: - “Ground 1 - General On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel- II (DRP') and the final assessment order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - 15(3)(1), Mumbai (DCIT

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Bp India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are

ITA 4873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bp India Pvt. Ltd. Room No.535, Aayakar Bhavan, Pb No. 19411, Technopolis Vs. Mumbai – 400020. Knowledge Park, Andheri, Mumbai- 400043. Pan No. – Aaccb2020Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 277/M/2025 In Ita No.4873/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah/ Mr. AmolFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR. D.R.)

Section 234DSection 271(1)(c)

Assessee vide letter dated 09.03.2015 informed the AO to file appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) instead of filing objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 6. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the Assessee filed detailed written submission. The submissions of Assessee are recorded in para 4 of the impugned

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

ITA 843/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (learned Assessing Officer' or learned AO'), which is in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('learned DRP' or 'learned Panel') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case ... Acropetal Technologies Ltd 22.27 4 Jeevan Scientific Technologies Ltd 19.20 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the telecommunication expenses and other expenses, incurred in foreign currency both from the Export Turnover

M/S Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 542/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (learned Assessing Officer' or learned AO'), which is in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('learned DRP' or 'learned Panel') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case ... Acropetal Technologies Ltd 22.27 4 Jeevan Scientific Technologies Ltd 19.20 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law and in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the telecommunication expenses, and other expenses, incurred in foreign currency both from the export

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Corporation (International) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 234/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 7A

learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (learned Assessing Officer' or learned AO'), which is in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('learned DRP' or 'learned Panel') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case ... Acropetal Technologies Ltd 22.27 4 Jeevan Scientific Technologies Ltd 19.20 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in law and in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the telecommunication expenses, and other expenses, incurred in foreign currency both from the export

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(3)(1), International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3480/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant ITA No.- 3480/Del/2025 Genpact Services LLC to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (DRP) order dated 18.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR relied upon Ground

Bechtel Ltd, London vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

144C(13) of the Act is wrong and bad in law and should be quashed and the order passed by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1. Delhi (‘DRP’) and the directions given therein are erroneous. Bechtel Limited vs. ACIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... proceeded to pass the final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 34. In Vijay Television (P) Ltd v. Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad) where again the AO passed the final assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act instead of passing

Bechtel Limited, London vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1816/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1492/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalluxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Cit, 7Th Floor, Dlf Building No.9, Circle-15(2), Tower-B, Phase-Iii, Dlf Cyber Vs. New Delhi. City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. Pan-Aabcl3871C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Adv., Ca Department By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Compliance To The Direction Given By Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Order Dated 15.12.2014 For Asst. Year 2010-11. 2. In The Present Appeal, The Co-Ordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 26.05.2017 In Ita No.1492/Del/2015 Has Remand The Issue Of Tp Adjustment Towards Alleged Amp Expenses To The File Of Tpo To Decide Afresh With Certain Directions, However, Luxottica India Eyewear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Ground In Respect Of Tp Adjustment Made Towards International Transactions Of Import Of Finished Goods Remained Un-Adjudicated.

Section 143(3)Section 92C

r.w.s.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) in compliance to the direction given by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide order dated 15.12.2014 for Asst. Year 2010-11. 2. In the present appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 26.05.2017 in ITA No.1492/Del/2015 ... Court sees no reason interfere since the adoption of the RPM by the Assessee was indeed found be the MAM by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) itself.” 6. It is thus, requested that in the present case, since the facts are identical, necessary directions be given to TPO to adopt

G S Strategic Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5644/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 74

section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, dated 27 June 2025 for the assessment year 2023- 24. 2 GS Strategic Investments Limited 2. At the threshold, we deem ... claimed as not chargeable under Article 13(4) of the India– Mauritius DTAA. Against the proposed variation, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The DRP noted that the issue is recurring in nature and that the Tribunal has ruled in favour of the assessee on the question

Acronis Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )Range-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2035/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. In various grounds of appeal the core issue which has been argued and challenged before ... India. Finally, an amount of ₹8,16,73,828/- was added as FTS. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee filed detailed objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. During the DRP proceedings, extensive submissions were made, supported by agreements, invoices, explanatory notes, and judicial precedents. The DRP also conducted further inquiries

Veritas Storage Singapore Pte Limited, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 3(1)(1) Del, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2026/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Veritas Storage (Singapore) Ptd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd. 9 Tamasek Boulevard, Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, 39-01 Suntec Tower Two, Civic Centre, Minto Road, Singapore-038989 New Delhi-110002 Pan :Aafcv2394A (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Tarun Gulati, Sr. Adv. & Shri Nikhil Gupta, Adv. & Shri Prince Nagpal, Adv. Revenue By Srhi M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .12.2025 Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

Section 144C(11)

Year 2022-23 on following grounds of appeal Ground 1 - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice by the Ld. DRP 1.1 The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has violated the principles of natural justice by failing to provide the Appellant with a pre-decisional hearing before raising a new issue ... Customers can take these classes via Online training, in-class or virtual instructor- led training or certification for validated expertise. 5. The ld. Dispute Resolution Panel has given its finding on this as under:- “5.5. Thus, it is clear that Software License services provided by the assessee having component

Sondex Wireline Ltd, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1959/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1959/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2022-23) Sondex Wireline Ltd., Cody Technology Park, Builing X107, Range Road, Farnborough, Foreign, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant United Kingdom Gu14Ofg Pan Aaqcs-9766E बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate With S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya Shankar Bajpai (Through Vc) & Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya ShankarFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)

year factual matrix has changed since AY 2013-14 as there has been change in the ownership. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) inter alia objecting to finding of the AO holding that the assessee has deemed PE in India. The DRP without appreciating the facts

Jeppesen Gmbh, Germany vs. ACIT, Internation Taxation, Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 1337/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us Read As Under:

Section 10(50)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in pursuance of the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel dated 10/12/2024, for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The effective grounds which have been argued before us read as under

Sms Group Gmbh, Delhi vs. ACIT.Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 377/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in consonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 17.03.2022 u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Identical issues are involved and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this ... /Del/2022 ITA No. 993 & 3297/Del/2023 MS Group Gmbh Taxation), Delhi (A.O) u/s 143(3) in pursuance of direction issued u/s 144C by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is perverse, bad in law and void, being contrary to law and principles of natural justice. 2. That the learned A.O./DRP has erred

Toyota Boshoku Corporation, Japan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) International Taxation New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2463/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kashish Gupta, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 151

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-2, Delhi dated 22.02.2022 u/s 144C(5). We find that the Assessee had filed an Additional Ground for both the 2. years