“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

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 130/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.7727/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No.7924/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.1086/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Ita No.667/Del/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 Ita No.668/Del/2023, A.Y. 2019-20 Ita No.3512/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Ita No.1892/Del/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 Concentrix Cvg Customer Deputy Commissioner Management Group Inc., (Earlier Of Income Tax, Known As ‘Convergys Customer Vs Circle - 1(2)(1), Management Group Inc.’) International Taxation, C/O Pwc Pvt. Ltd., E-2 Tower, Civic Centre Sucheta Bhawan, Minto Road Gate No. 2, 1St Floor, New Delhi 11-A, Vishnu Digambar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234ASection 270A

facts of these cases are different only that these have been routed through the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) and therefore, these appeals are against the orders passed under section 143(3) rws 144C(13) of the Act. The issue of DIN was not pressed in ITA No. 3512/Del/2023; hence, this

Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s both appeals are allowed as above

ITA 7727/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Section 234ASection 270A

Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

ITA 3412/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 80G

assessment order has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, pursuant to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP); 1.4 erred on facts in concluding that the learned AO has made no inquiry regarding the deduction claimed under section

Avana Global Fzco, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-2023 Avana Global Fzco Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No.2002-2004, 2201- Income-Tax (International Tax) 2204 & 2103, 20Th, 21St & – 1(1)(2), Mumbai 22Nd Floor, Building Q 2, Aurum Q Parc Gen 4/1, Vs. Tic, Ghansoli, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai – 400701. (Pan: Aadcb4021A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna A/W. Shri Hardik Nirmal & Ms. Hinal Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w. Shri Hardik Nirmal and Ms. Hinal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 44B

Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Commissioner of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel-1), Mumbai-2, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1071372618(1), dated 19.12.2024, passed u/s. 144C ... case and in law, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai [DCTT(IT)] and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (DRP) erred in denying the benefit of Article 8 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and UAE (Tax Treaty) on the shipping

Hazira Port Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cicle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

ITA 265/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit SahniFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (in short “Ld. CIT(DRP-2)”), Mumbai-1 vide order dated 28.04.2022 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised ... read with Section 144C(3) and Section 144B of the Act dated September 15, 2021 (“First Assessment Order”), without awaiting the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) which is not in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s 144C of the Act and is liable to be annulled. 2. That

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

assessment proceeding, the A.O. framed a draft assessment order. 4. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘ld. DRP’ for short). 5. On 10.06.2022, ld. DRP disposed of the objections by issuing direction to the A.O. Based on the directions

Manpowergroup Services India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Delhi, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi

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

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

assessee read as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') have erred in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 24,16,27,837 claimed u/s 80JJAA of the Act by arbitrarily challenging the employer

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR

Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

against the order of the CIT(A) (DRP- 1), Mumbai-2 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 18.12.2024 passed Direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2022-23. 2. The assessee ... learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) erred in finalising the assessment without appreciating the fact that the directions given by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) are irrelevant to the issues of the Appellant and are ultra vires the scope of the reference made by the Appellant

Jubilant Generics Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1)(1), G.B. Nagar

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

ITA 2004/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’). 5. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’), who rejected the assessee’s request to treat its AE as a tested party, but partly accepted some objections in respect of few comparables ... case of Decathlon Sports India Pvt. Ltd. IT(TP)A No. 1874/Bang/2024 (order dated 26.12.2024) has held as under: “37. The learned dispute resolution panel in paragraph number 2.1 has rejected the foreign AE as a tested party because when the entity being evaluated for transfer pricing purposes

Innovative Textiles Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1160/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Innovative Textiles Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), 81, Vighyan Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Aaaci0473J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Department/National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Orders Of The Learned Lower Tax Authorities Is/Are Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270A

/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2017-18 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act raising following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the orders of the learned lower tax authorities is/are contrary ... cause notice being draft assessment order was served on the appellant before making the final assessment order. 3. That the learned Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) /lower tax authorities had contrary to law and facts of the case, without any proper basis and properly appreciating and considering the submissions

Faisal Badruddin Shitware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax Ward)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 151ASection 153Section 5Section 69

assessee against the order of the AO ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai dated 17.12.2024 passed as per the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised ... provisions are not applicable in his case. ON MERITS: 3.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1. Mumbai ["the DRP"] erred in partly confirming the action of the Ld. AO and thereby sustaining an addition

Asha Didwania, Bhadrak vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bhadrak Ward, Bhadrak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 271BSection 275(1)(c)

provided through Notifications nos. 74/2021 & 75/2021, dated 25th June, 2021 Circular no. 12/2021 dated 25th June, 2021. These reliefs are: 1) Objections to Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and Assessing Officer under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for which the last date

Birla Carbon India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3768/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyabirla Carbon India Private Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Ground Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Income Tax Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aaykar S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Vs. Mumbai-400 030 Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aascs 9916 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: In The Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Called Into Question The Validity Of The Order Dated 25.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld.Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Thought Multiple Grounds Have Been Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal, However, The Assessee Has Raised A Pertinent Preliminary Issue, Challenging The Competence & Jurisdiction Of Ld. Pcit To Invoke Powers U/S. 263 Of The Act To Revise An Assessment Order Passed U/S. 144C(13) Of The Act, In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. Drp).

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 92C

revise an assessment order passed u/s. 144C(13) of the Act, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (ld. DRP). 2 Birla Carbon India Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 3. At the outset, we propose to deal with the aforesaid preliminary issue and, if warranted ... when the original assessment order has been passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), on the basis of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). 15. We may gainfully refer to the provision of section 263 in this regard. "263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Titan Company Limited, Hosur vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 393/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.393/Chny/2018 & आयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.89/Chny/2018 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Titan Company Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Income No.3, Spicot Industrial Complex, Vs. Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 126. Ltu-2, [Pan: Aaact 5131A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana &For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80ISection 92C

assessee has raised the following grounds: “The grounds hereinafter taken by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. 1. The Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('DRP') erred in ignoring the submissions made by the Appellant with regard to the Upward adjustment made of profits of 80-IC units

Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2969/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 92C

option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection to any such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel and also the Assessing Officer. Sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Act provides that if any objections are raised by the assessee before ... Dispute Resolution Panel, the Panel is empowered to issue such direction as it thinks fit for the guidance of the Assessing Officer after considering various details provided in Clauses (A) to (G) thereof. Sub- section (13) of section 144C of the Act provides that upon receipt of directions issued under

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5335/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

dismissal of the Revenue's SLP (C) [CC No. 16694/2013] on 27th September, 2013. 13. In Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel [2014] 369 ITR 113 (Mad.), a similar question arose. There, the Revenue sought to rectify a mistake by issuing a corrigendum after the final ... Zuari Cement Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) and a number of other decisions, the Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel (supra) quashed the final order of the AO and the demand notice. Interestingly, even as regards the corrigendum issued, the Madras High Court held that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5334/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5333/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 124(4)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 6(3)(ii)