“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

Huawei International Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Intl. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of 7

ITA 2648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh & Sa 298/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Huawei International Pte. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 51, Change Business Park, Circle-2(1)(1), Central-2, #07-08, The International Signature, Singapore Taxation, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacch3694N Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv Shri Yash Nagar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. s. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149

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) dated 26.02.2024 u/s 144C. SA 298/Del/2025 Huawei International Pte. Ltd The Ground Nos. 3 & 3.1. raised by the assessee are challenging the validity

Honda R&D (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 4930/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekhonda R&D (India) Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), Technical Centre Plot No.2, Delhi. Sector 3, Imt Manesar, Gurugram – 122 052 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabch3071N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Order : 08.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

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

/144B 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 raising following grounds of appeal :- 2 “General grounds 1. Impugned order appears to be time barred

Jogpl Pvt Ltd, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Circle-13(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 14

ITA 1718/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshjogpl Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Plot No. 15, Knowledge Circle-13(1), Park-2, Greater Noida, Delhi Up 2011306 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace0169K Assessee By : Shri M. K. Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri S. K. Jadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. jadav, CIT DR

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

Officer (AO) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 31.03.2022 u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2011-12 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. The assessee has also filed appeals against assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle 16(1), New Delhi ... read with section 144C(1) of the Act for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

M/S Discovery Communication India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee and appeal of the Revenue are dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 6772/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2009-10 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. The assessee has also filed appeal against the final assessment order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the DCIT, Circle 7 (2), Delhi ... Assessment Year 2011-12 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that since the assessee has settled the issue under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (in short ‘VSVS’), hence, the Assessee wishes

Discovery Communication India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee and appeal of the Revenue are dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2662/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Discovery Communication India, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee and appeal of the Revenue are dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2494/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

read with section 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14 in accordance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “DRP”] 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The basic particulars as recorded by the Assessing Officer show that ... order, a draft assessment order dated 29.12.2016 was passed and served on the assessee on 02.01.2017. 2.3 The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(2). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, directions of the DRP under section 144C(5) were received in the office

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 1203/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 260Section 80GSection 92C

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The order under challenge is passed pursuant to the Directions :-2-: ITA. No.:1203/Chny/2025 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as “DRP”) u/s.144C of the Act, dated 28.12.2024. 2. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2021-22

Sp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6575/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailsp Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited 404, Trade Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aaqcs7983P ............... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani a/w Shri Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe & Shri Aditya M. Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 253(1)Section 92C(1)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 30/09/2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel- 2, Mumbai [“learned DRP”], for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “Based on facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ('AO')/the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP") has erred in computing the total income of the Appellant at INR 42,11,15,313/-as against returned income

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Satyendra Kumar Triloknath Goyal, Mumbai

ITA 4421/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 250Section 43CSection 66Section 68Section 69C

addition of the above sum by invoking the provisions of section 43CA of the act. This was also upheld by the learned dispute resolution panel. 038. The learned authorized representative submitted that first proviso to section 43CA (1) of the act states that where the difference between the sale consideration

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 666/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., Canada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 665/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 626/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Pratt & Whitney Canada (Sea) Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 620/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Aparna Sandeep Kulkarani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 909/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16 Aparna Sandeep Kulkarni, Income Tax Officer, 201A, Kanchanjanga, Int. Tax. Ward-3(1)(1), Sector 12-A, Plot No.12, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Koparkhairane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Navi Mumbai-400709. Bandra (East), Pan : Axfpk0077M Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan L. Vajani For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

Mumbai-1, pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Dispute Resolution Panel, hereinafter referred to as the "DRP", has erred in confirming the addition

Fortum Finnsurya Energy Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn, as indicated above

ITA 2792/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Garg, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(3)

Income-tax Act, 1961 ITA No.- 2792/Del/2023 Fortum Finnsurya Energy Pvt. Ltd. (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 17.01.2022 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the captioned appeal is duplicative