← 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

Radhika Bahadur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

ITA 995/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.995/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2016-17) Radhika Bahadur, C/O. R. Khare & Associates, 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi 110016 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Avapb-3016-C बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(1)(2), Civic Centre, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam Bhatnagar, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam BhatnagarFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

property, the AO erred in not granting the benefit of cost of acquisition of Goa property. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) inter alia assailing the Draft Assessment Order in not giving benefit of cost of acquisition of Goa property. The assessee furnished the detail vide

Indeed India Operations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the assessment year 2021-2022 is allowed

ITA 943/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.943 & 1359/Hyd/2024 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2021-2022 Indeed India Operations The Acit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle-2(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad. Telangana Pan Aadci5931J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Mahima Goud, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mahima Goud, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

Assessing Officer Le., the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. AO") under the directions issued by the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('the Hon'ble DRP"), erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,68,62,731 towards interest on outstanding receivables ... 10th Floor, 1. Skyview 10 Survey No.83/1, Raidurg (Panmaktha) Village, Shaikpet, Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana 2. The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad. The Disputes Resolution Panel-1, Kendriya Sadan, 4th 3. Floor, C-Wing, BENGALURU – 560 034. 4. The. Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 5. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad

Calliduscloud (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1395/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

short “the Act”), dated 2 M/s. Callidus Cloud (India) Private Limited 23.10.2024, in pursuance to the Directions dated 19.09.2024 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee ... making addition towards TP adjustment suggested by the learned TPO. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel challenging the TP adjustments made by the learned TPO. The Hon’ble DRP, vide its directions issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 11.09.2024, partly

Indeed India Operations Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1359/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.943 & 1359/Hyd/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

Assessing Officer Le., the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. AO") under the directions issued by the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('the Hon'ble DRP"), erred in making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,68,62,731 towards interest on outstanding receivables

Saxon Global India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1334/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
Section 144C(5)Section 92C

short “the Act”), dated 2 Saxon Global India Private Limited 28.10.2024, in pursuance to the Directions dated 19.09.2024 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read ... 144C(1) on 29.12.2023, determining the total income at Rs. 2,19,83,955/-. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the TP adjustment proposed in the draft assessment order. The Ld. DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and the material available

Interwrap Corp Private Limited (Successor of Owens Corning Industries (India) Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT., Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 496/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

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

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), dated 28.07.2022, in pursuance to the Directions dated 14.06.2022 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised ... r.ws 144C(13) read with section 1448 of the Income-tax Act pursuant to the directions dated 14 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act, is bad in law and void ab initio so far as it is prejudicial to the Appellant. Transfer

Dr. Reddys, Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 491/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Income Tax Department under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), pursuant to the directions dated 29 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP") u/s 144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA ... raised by the assessee reads as under: “ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The Document Identification Number (DIN) quoted on the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 21.06.2022 under section 144C(5) of the Act being handwritten, and not verifiable on the income-tax portal, the directions issued

Dr. Reddys, Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 490/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Income Tax Department under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), pursuant to the directions dated 29 June 2022 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP") u/s 144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 11 July 2022 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA ... raised by the assessee reads as under: “ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The Document Identification Number (DIN) quoted on the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 21.06.2022 under section 144C(5) of the Act being handwritten, and not verifiable on the income-tax portal, the directions issued

Ntt Data Business Solutios Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 489/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Ntt Data Business The Dcit, Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin -500081. Hyderabad. Pan Aadci1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144

quashed. Transfer Pricing Grounds 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP') erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO') /Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') in making an adjustment ... Floor, B-Wing, Info City Software Units Layout, Madhapur, Hyderabad. PIN -500081. Telangana. 2. The DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. The Disputes Resolution Panel-1, Kendriya Sadan, 4th 3. Floor, C-Wing, BENGALURU – 560 034. 4. The. Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 5. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Hyderabad. 6. Guard file

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

Extracts from Assessment Orders for AY 2012-13 and AY 2014-15; 5. • The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in violating the principles of judicial discipline by not following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own case

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

Extracts from Assessment Orders for AY 2012-13 and AY 2014-15; 5. • The Ld. AO and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in violating the principles of judicial discipline by not following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the Appellant's own case

Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 2(2)(2) (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1601/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1601/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2022-23) Outsytems Singapore Pte. Ltd., 41-01, 8 Temasek Boulevard, Suntec Tower Three, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Singapore 389980 Pan Aadco-0528-P बिाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(2), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shivangi Chitlangia Chartered Accountants प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 10.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As 13 Grounds. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That He Is Not Pressing Ground No. 4 Of Appeal Assailing Validity Of The Assessment Order Without Din. In Light Of The 2 Statement Made By Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Ground No. 4 Of Appeal Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shivangi ChitlangiaFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “डी”, धिल्ली श्री विकास अिस्थी, न्याविक सदस्य एिं श्री एम. बालगणेश, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

Bombardier Inc., Quebec, Canada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1022/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbombardier Inc, Vs. Acit, 400, Dorval, Cote-Vertu, Circle-1(1)(2), Road West, Quebee Delhi Canada-H4S1Y9 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccb7177J Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Cas Shri Varun Jain, Ca Shri Mohit Agarwal, Ca Ms. Amulya K. Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAsFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 9(1)(vii)

under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, New Delhi dated 24.12.2024 u/s 144C(5). 2. The Ground No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee is general in nature and does

Myntra Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, grounds of appeal no

ITA 3770/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3770/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2021-22) Myntra Inc. 8201, 164Th Ave Ne, Suited 200, Redmond, Wa 98052, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant United States Of America, 98052 Pan Aalcm-3409-K बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Civic Centre, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Rashi Khanna, Advocate प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Anjula Jain, Cit (Dr) & Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 16.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That On Instructions From The Assessee/Appellant He Is Not 2 Pressing Ground No. 2 Of Appeal, Assailing Validity Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Directions Sans Din. In Light Of The Statement Made By Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At Bar, Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rashi Khanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT (DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

outset submitted that on instructions from the assessee/appellant he is not 2 pressing ground no. 2 of appeal, assailing validity of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions sans DIN. In light of the statement made by ld. Counsel for the assessee at Bar, ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed

Toshiba Energy System & Solutions Corporation, Japan vs. DCIT Circle Intl Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed protanto

ITA 2113/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.2113/धिल्ली/2023(नि.व. 2020-21) Toshiba Energy System & Solutions Corporation, 72-34, Horikawa Cho, Saiwai Ku Kawasaki-Shi, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Kanagawa, Japan 212-0013 Pan Aagct-4986-R बिाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri Kashish Gupta, Chartered Accountant प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

appeal he is pressing before the Tribunal for adjudication is ground no. 4 i.e. assailing findings of the Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in treating the reimbursement of actual cost towards seconded employees 2 as Fee for Technical Services (FTS) u/s.9

Massimo Dutti India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmassimo Dutti India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Unit No. 1 (Office 1) 8Th Floor, Circle-1(1), Ambience Island, Nh-8, Gurgaon Gurugram, Hayana-122 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajcm0103G Assessee By : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv Ms. Shruti Khimta, Adv Ms. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri S. K. Jadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 07.06.2022 u/s 144C(5) and order of TPO dated 15.09.2022 passed u/s 92CA(3). 2. The Ground No. 1 raised

Mariappan Austin Prakash, Bengaluru, Kanrnataka vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl Txn Circle, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 9(1)(i)

been completed on or before 31.05.2024 in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 144C for the reason of the Dispute Resolution Panel outrightly rejecting the objections filed by the Appellant by treating it as invalid, thus the matter ceasing to fall within the scope

Andhra Paper Limited, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.349/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2020-21) Vs. Acit – Circle -1 Andhra Paper Limited 14-6-9, Admin Office Veerabhadrapuram Kateru Road Rajahmundry-533101 Sri Ramnagar S.O. (Rajahmundry) Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry (Urban) East Godavari – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaact8849D]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

issued to the assessee proposing the adjustment as concluded by the TPO. The assessee filed its objection on 17.10.2023 before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru [in short “DRP”]. The DRP rejected the submissions furnished by the assessee, where the assessee failed to justify ALP of the international transactions ... passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act*), subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'Panel') and finally passed by the Ld. AO in the assessment order u/s144C(13) r.w.s 144B

Concentrix Catalyst Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 963/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri D Prabhakar Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") (hereinafter referred to as "final assessment order") in pursuance of the directions issued by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru ("Hon'ble DRP") dated 25 June 2024 under section 144C(5) of the Act inter-alia on the following grounds which are without ... under under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) the Act in accordance with the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP") under section 144C(5) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as “the final assessment order”), on the ground that it is barred by the limitation prescribed under

M/S Tdk India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT Circle 11(1), Kolkata, Delhi and Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2565/KOL/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Tdk India Private Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1), Kolkata Wbidc Growth Centre, Kulia Aayakar Bhawan, P-7 Kanchrapara Road, Po Ns Chowringhee Square, Sanatorium,Kalyani, Nadia, Vs. 6Th Floor, Roomno.18, Kolkata-741251, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci6950Q Assessee By : Shri Arjit Chakraborthy, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Chakraborthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the “DRP”] dated 23.01.2024 for the AY 2021-22. 2. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground