“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

Rbs Aa Holdings (Netherlands) B.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2261/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uss.

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CITDR

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(47)Section 48Section 50CSection 5O

144C(13)/144Bof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2018-19 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a company incorporated in the ITA No.2261/Del/2022 Netherlands

Rishnoor Kaur, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Dhiman, Advocate (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)

status as a non-resident and any consequential requirement of issuing a draft assessment order, providing the assessee a further opportunity before the Dispute Resolution Panel, and completing the assessment thereafter in accordance with law. 7.4 The assessee is directed to co-operate in the remand proceedings and furnish

Sap India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 1519/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

Section 143Section 144BSection 144C

passed by the Deputy Commissioner of income tax (transfer pricing) – 2 (2) (1) (the learned TPO) and the direction issued by The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Bangalore (the DRP) under section 144C (5) of the act wherein the returned income filed by the assessee on 31st of March 2021 declaring ... assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹11,825,669,920. 08. The assessee approached the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which issued its directions on 14 May 2024. Pursuant to these directions, the transfer pricing adjustment was revised from ₹1,813,813,200 to ₹1,704,986,366. However

Preity G Zinta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int Tax Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4199/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Preity G Zinta Income Tax Officer, Int Tax, 403 Parishram, Ward 4(3)(1), Smt. Nergish Dutt Road, Mumbai Bandra West Vs. Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaapz2650B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita Nara, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi and Ms. Vinita Nara, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the assessment order passed under the directions of order of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5) r.w.s. 254_260A/2024- 25/1075167929(1), dated 28/03/2025, passed u/s. 144C(5) r.w.s. 254/260A of the Income

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(4) Earlier With ACIT(Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, theappeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly

ITA 563/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Bleunder Section 255(4) Of The Act. The Points Of Difference Were Thereafter Referred To The Hon’Blefor Resolution. The Hon’Blehas Now Rendered His Detailed Opinion & The Appeals Have Been Placed Before Us To Pass The Consequential

Section 255(4)Section 80

electricity should be computed based on therate fixed by the State Electricity Board for the electricity which ispurchased by the assessee. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP affirmed theview taken by the assessing officer and the matter was challenged before thetribunal. The tribunal followed the decision in the assessee

Rockwell Automation India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-19(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3861/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalrockwell Automation India Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle-19(1), Registered Address: 131, Vs. Delhi. Functional Industrial Are, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 Communication Address: 131, Functional Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr3791A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain, Ar Department By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C (13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.07.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Ae That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing / Assembling Of Automation & Industrial Control Products / Systems. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Reference Was Made To The Tpo Due With Transactions With Ae’S. The Return Of Income Was Filed On Rockwell Automation India Private Limited Vs. Dcit 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.97,08,46,360/-. The Tpo Vide Its Order Dated 28.07.2023 Passed U/S 92Ca(3) Of The Act Has Proposed Adjustments Totaling To Rs. 26,12,44,668/-. Thereafter, The Ao Has Passed The Draft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) Of The Act Dated 27.09.2023 Wherein The Ao Has Proposed The Additions Towards The Tp Adjustment As Per Tpo’S Order & Proposed To Assess The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,88,57,458/- & Further Proposed To Disallow Relief Claimed U/S 90/90A At Rs.1,04,60,287/-. Against The Draft Assessment Order, The Assessee Filed Objections Before The Drp.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 90Section 90ASection 92C

Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “Pertaining to Transfer Pricing matters 1. On the facts and in law, the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP'), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) and the Ld. AO (hereinafter collectively to be referred as "Revenue") erred in making

Sempertrans India Private Limited, Roha vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1778/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1778/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain andFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92D

determined the total income at Rs.8,18,27,030/-. 11. Subsequently, assessee challenged the draft assessment order and approached the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and made submissions on all the issues raised regarding the adjustments proposed in the draft assessment order. Ld. DRP vide its order dated 24.05.2024 only sustained

Deloitte Consulting India Projects Lp, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1386/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1386/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Deloitte Consulting Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income India Projects Lp, Tax (Int.Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcd1272B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Deloitte Consulting India Projects LP 4. Against the draft order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed objections before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”). The Ld. DRP, vide its directions dated 09.09.2024, upheld the findings of the Ld. TPO. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed a final assessment order

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

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

r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) in pursuance to the Directions dated 15.03.2021 of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1 (“DRP”), Bengaluru, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, relating to the assessment year 2016-17, and (ii) the order ... case and is in violation of principle of natural justice. 1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and Ld. AO/ the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO) 3 ITA.No.434/Hyd/2021 & ITA 240/Hyd/2023 M/s. Signode India Limited have erred in making the transfer

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 434/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

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

Fil India Business and Research Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3245/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Fil India Business & Research Vs Assessment Unit Services Pvt. Ltd., Private Studio- Income Tax Ncra/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Department, Delhi Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi-110037. Pan-Aabcf1572C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Shri Shitiz Bansal, Ar Respondent By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 920Section 92C(3)

r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] after incorporating the giving effect to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) dated 31.05.2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee company engaged in the business

Pcl Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addi CIT, National E- Assesment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 442/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Pcl Foods Private Limited, Additional / Joint/ Unit No.-219, Plot No. 2, Deputy/Assistant Vardhman Crown Mall, Lsc, Vs Commissioner Of Income Sector 19, Dwarka, New Tax/ Income Tax Officer, Delhi-110075. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aahcp3493L Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Foods Pvt. Ltd. r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 29.10.2020 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee ... appellant's case by passing the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13)/92CA(3) pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) making addition/ adjustment of 11,52,09,793/- on account of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA

Applexus Technologies Private Limited, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Kottayam

ITA 955/COCH/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

For Appellant: Shri Reuben JosephFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

144C read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bengaluru [for short ‘DRP’], on 12/08/2024 under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Assessee

M/S.Ibs Software Services P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

ITA 601/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 92C

92CA read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bangalore [for short ‘DRP’], on 07/08/2017 under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee ... learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram (Assessing Officer' or learned AO') pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel -II (learned Panel), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed.” 3.1. Ground No.1 raised

Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax) Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4972/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Income Tax Officer Ward No. 64, Balasinor Society, S.V. Road, Vs 2(1)(1) Mumbai, Room No. 618, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067, Maharashtra Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, [Pan No. Aacpc 4520F] Int Tax Ward, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153(2)Section 253

final assessment order passed by assessing officer under section 143(3)/147 read with section 144C(13), passed in pursuance of direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Mumbai-1, dated 24th June 2025, for assessment year (AY)2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; A. Reopening

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Respondent: Mr. Vishal Karla

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

Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) – 1(1)(1), Mumbai (in short the Assessing Officer), pursuant to the direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ld. DRP) for assessment year 2022-23, raising following grounds: American Chemical Society American Chemical Society 1. That on the fact ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in holding that Ld. AO/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in holding that Ld. AO/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 509/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

order bad in law. 10. In this context, reference is invited to provisions of Section 144C of the Act: Section 144C - Reference to dispute resolution panel. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed ... violated by the Id. AO if the draft order was issued then the assessee has remedy to file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 10. On 10.07.2025 the Id. DR submitted that the case of the shows non compliance before the Id. AO and she has not filed the appeal

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 508/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

order bad in law. 10. In this context, reference is invited to provisions of Section 144C of the Act: Section 144C - Reference to dispute resolution panel. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed ... violated by the ld. AO if the draft order was issued then the assessee has remedy to file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 10. On 10.07.2025 the ld. DR submitted that the case of the shows non compliance before the ld. AO and she has not filed the appeal

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 507/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

order bad in law. 10. In this context, reference is invited to provisions of Section 144C of the Act: Section 144C - Reference to dispute resolution panel. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed ... violated by the ld. AO if the draft order was issued then the assessee has remedy to file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 10. On 10.07.2025 the ld. DR submitted that the case of the shows non compliance before the ld. AO and she has not filed the appeal

Sonu Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, 1, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 506/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144CSection 153CSection 153DSection 250

order bad in law. 10. In this context, reference is invited to provisions of Section 144C of the Act: Section 144C - Reference to dispute resolution panel. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed ... violated by the ld. AO if the draft order was issued then the assessee has remedy to file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 10. On 10.07.2025 the ld. DR submitted that the case of the shows non compliance before the ld. AO and she has not filed the appeal