“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

Celestial Aviation Trading 64 Limited, Shannon, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), International Tax, Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee/appellant and against the Department

ITA 1419/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Counsel submits that though the assessee has raised other issues viz. tenability of the impugned final assessment order and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) beyond jurisdiction in ground no. 2 and 4 of appeal, respectively, the assessee is not pressing said grounds. 3. Per contra, M.S Nethrapal representing

Celestial Aviation Trading 8 Limited, Shannon, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), International Tax, Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee/appellant and against the Department

ITA 1386/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Celestial Aviation Trading 62 Limited, Shannon, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), International Tax, Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee/appellant and against the Department

ITA 1385/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Celestial Aviation Trading 36 Limited, Shannon, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), International Tax, Delhi, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee/appellant and against the Department

ITA 1384/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Weg Industries (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assessing Officer, Bmtc Building

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

ITA 2501/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Sumeet Khurana , CA

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

144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore ('Hon'ble DRP') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law, factually erroneous and liable to be quashed. LEGAL ... test which are relevant for external comparables. She extensively referred the order of the learned transfer pricing officer and the learned dispute resolution panel that why internal TNMM comparability was rejected. It was stated that the data should be reliable. The data produced by the assessee

Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1137/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. Ground No. 1: The Draft Assessment Order, Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Final Assessment Order, are erroneous, contrary to law, without jurisdiction, and bad in law; 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances ... Mumbai ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act and the directions issued by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. DRP') dated 18 December 2024 under section 144C(5) of the Act ('DRP Directions') are erroneous, contrary to law, without jurisdiction, and/or invalid, and/or

Tata Consumer Products Limited (Successor of Tata Coffee Ltd.), Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2636/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 438Section 43BSection 80MSection 928Section 92B

Income Tax Department ('Ld. AO) and the directions under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 24 September 2024 passed by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous and bad in law. 2.0 On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the final assessment order under section ... time-barred. 3.0 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO)/ Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. DRP") grossly erred in making an adjustment of INR 2,00,21,945 to the income of the Appellant on account of corporate

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. S Vinodkumar Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2282/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Section 143(3)(ii) r.w.s. 144C (1) of the Act. Vide, letter dated 27/01/2017, the Assessee opted not to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel and therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 15/02/2017, under Section 143(3)(ii) r.w.s. 144C ... case of the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011- 2012 [ITA No.968/Mum/2016, dated 03/10/2019], identical issue was remanded back to the Dispute Resolution Panel with observing as under: “4. Upon perusal of para-4 of order u/s 92CA (3) dated 31/12/2014 passed by Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer, it transpires that

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. S Vinodkumar Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2281/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

Solvay S A, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2071/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

dated 15.01.2021, passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act' for short) in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Id. DRP' for short), pertaining to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2022-23. 2. At the outset, Id. Counsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions

Best City Projects India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5294/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 254Section 68

order. Hon’ble High Court ordered that since passing of draft assessment order and the consequential option of the taxpayer to approach the dispute resolution panel comprises an mandatory stipulation in the Act, the same cannot be ignored. 15. We have also noted that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupur vs. Sri Shanmugavel Mills Private Limited, Tirupur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1048/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Saddik Ahmed, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

Nos.265, 266 & 267 / Chny / 2025 – Chennai ITAT • DCIT v Phillips Carbon Black Ltd. [2025] 175 taxmann.com 352 (Kol Trib.) • Even the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru in the case of Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. for the assessment year 2020-21 vide its directions dated 28.06.2024 has taken the same

Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Itd, New Delhi

In the result, ground no 3 raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 4400/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Juniper Networks Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assessment Unit, Unit No.Iia, 06Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Nfac Itd, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaecj1345A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Shri Sandeep Bhalla, Advocate Shri Anurag Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.07.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2020-21 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee company, M/s Juniper Networks Solution India Private Limited ... been deleted by the Learned DC/ACIT TP Delhi 2(2)(1) ('Ld. TPO') in the order passed to give effect to the Dispute Resolution Panel (,DRP') directions. The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to delete the adjustment of Rs.16,86,93,204. 3. On the facts

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2(DRP) dated 27.06.2019 u/s 144C(5) and order dated 30.01.2016 passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA ... from the above TPO's order that he went by assessee's related parties royalty agreement transactions in proposing the impugned adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel reverses the same leaving the Revenue aggrieved. 31. We have heard rival contentions. Suffice to say, since the transfer pricing officer in the instant

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 759/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19, are against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer(AO) in accordance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) u/s.147 r.w.s.144C of the Act. 2. At the outset itself, it was common ground that the issue in all the appeals arose from

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 758/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, are against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer(AO) in accordance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. 2. At the outset itself, it was common ground that the issue in all the appeals arose from

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Int.Tax., Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 339/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, are against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer(AO) in accordance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. 2. At the outset itself, it was common ground that the issue in all the appeals arose from

Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Int.Tax., Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 338/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, are against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer(AO) in accordance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C of the Act. 2. At the outset itself, it was common ground that the issue in all the appeals arose from

Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6857/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270ASection 40

full-scale, entrepreneurial operator of the Netflix Service in India, performing all value-creating activities locally. DRP's Direction 28. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), while dealing with the assessee's objections, substantially endorsed the TPO's findings. In its extensive directions ... limited-risk distributor of access to the Netflix Service, or whether, as alleged by the Transfer Pricing Officer and affirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel, it operates as an entrepreneurial content-and-technology service provider, bearing significant risks and entitled or liable to commensurate remuneration under the arm's-length

Coim India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5377/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmancoim India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4 (2), Shop No.4, Ground Floor, Delhi. Rajendra Bhawan, Patel Nagar East, Delhi – 110 008. (Pan : Aabcc4026E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Puru, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2025 Date Of Order : 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By The Income Tax Department, Assessment Unit U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That Vide Letter Dated 14.10.2025 Which Is Placed On Record, Assessee Seeks To Withdraw

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR

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

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2021-22 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that vide letter dated 14.10.2025 which