“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

Softwareone India Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor of Comparex India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4287/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S. Softwareone India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Acit, (As Successor Of Comparex India Circle-22(2), Pvt. Ltd ), Delhi 4Th Floor, Kaveri Tower-1, 211, Sector-D, Pocket-6, Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaocs6228H Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri S. K. Jadav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 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 29.06.2024 u/s 144C(5) and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated

Schneider Electric India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2187/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari & Ms. Tanya, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

also from the relevant legal provision of the Act in force, thereby vitiating the Appellants right to file objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel. 11. The Assessee company e-filed return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring a loss of Rs.187214318. The return was subsequently revised

M/S Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 92C

assessment. The assessee was not satisfied with the assessment so proposed by the Assessing Officer and did raise the grievances before the Dispute Resolution Panel but without any success. It was in this backdrop that an arm’s length price adjustment of Rs 2,09,00,179 was made

M/S Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3195/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 92C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

M/S. Religare Capital Markets Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 753/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 68Section 92Section 92B

amounting to Rs.1,86,00,00,000/- representing the amount of preference shares subscribed by M/s. Cresswell Investments Ltd. (“CIL”). The learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)’s direction dated 30th December, 2015 appear to have rejected the assessee’s contentions as under: “Ground 2: Grounds of appeal related to addition

Jayshree Nilam Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 942/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271A(1)(d)Section 272(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)

made to the total income under section 69 of the Act and finalized after no objections were filed before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 4. Following the completion of the assessment, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act by issuing notices dated

Man Diesel and Turbo India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Baroda

ITA 716/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT DR

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 vide order dated 13.12.2016 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Before us, at the outset

Xilinx India Technology Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1761/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri SP Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

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

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") dated 31.10.2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16, in accordance with the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP") dated 06.09.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Circle 17(2), Hyderabad u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), pursuant to the directions dated 6 September 2019 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ('DRP') u/s 144C(5) of the Act and read with order dated 30 October 2018 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') u/s 92CA

Cnh Industrial (India) Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi

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

ITA 688/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sa 74/Del/2025 (In Ita No.688/Del/2025) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Cnh Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Level-4, Rectangle-1, D4 Dcit, District Center, Commercial Circle-4(2), Complex Saket, South Delhi, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci3922Q

For Appellant: Shri Majoj Pardarsani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

144C r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 28.09.2024 u/s 144C(5) and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.769/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Candor Gurgaon One Realty Dcit, Projects Private Limited, Vs. Circle 4(2), C.R. Building, F-83, Profit Centre, Gate No.1, New Delhi. Mahavir Nagar, Near Pizza Hut, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaacu8046K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2278/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Candor Gurgaon One Realty Dcit, Projects Private Limited, Vs. Circle 4(2), C.R. Building, F-83, Profit Centre, Gate No.1, New Delhi. Mahavir Nagar, Near Pizza Hut, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aaacu8046K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 270A

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the final pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) in (DRP) is vitiated as the Hon'ble DRP erred in confirming the arbitrary

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Project Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 2278/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Section 270A

Alstom Information System and Technology ((Formerly Known As Alstom Information Technology Centre), Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 9654/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jaskaran Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR and Shri Rjaesh Kumar Dhanesta, Senior DR

Section 143(3)

order of learned Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21.10.2019 arising out of directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi dated 26th August, 2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted

Hollister Medical India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5352/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Pareekhollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C-8/7, Lawrence Road, Keshav Circle-10(1), Puram, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabch8555K

For Appellant: Ms. Anita Barur, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 41Section 41(1)

r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 22.08.2024 u/s 144C(5) and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated ... taxation of the same amount. 3. Ground No. III- Non-consideration of corporate tax grounds while passing the DRP directions 3.1 The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds of objection filed and explained in the personal hearing with respect to corporate tax and presented

Fortum India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Tpo 1(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 345/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Pareekfortum India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1A, Vandana Building, Tpo-1(2)(2), 11 Tolstoy Marg, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccf0436G Assessee By : Ms. Arya Asopa, Ar Revenue By: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Arya Asopa, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 4Section 91(1)Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 30.09.2021 u/s 144C(5) and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated

Dhanji Murji Hirani, Kutch vs. ITO.(Int.Txn)Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.131/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dhanji Murji Hirani, Baladia Ito (Int.Txn), बनाम Bhuj, Kutch, Gandhidham Gujarat 370427 Vs. Pan : Afaph0463B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 271ASection 69

Member: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP)/ Assessing officer, under section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated ... Aggrieved by the draft order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ( in brief “Ld. DRP”), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Before learned DRP, the assessee submitted additional evidences to prove the investment in time deposit

M/S. Philips International B.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 544/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Riya Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

facts 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer ['Ld. AO'] and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ['Hon'ble DRP'] have erred in treating the sum of Rs. 90,98,85,471 received by the appellant from its group entities ... facts 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Assessing Officer ['Ld. AO'] and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ['Hon'ble DRP'] have erred in treating the sum of Rs. 3,51,94,430 received by the appellant from Philips India Limited towards

M/S. Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 543/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Riya Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 6764/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) pursuant to the directions dated 25.09.2024 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (“learned DRP") under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The brief facts of the case are that ... Department, under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) and section 144B of the Act, in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as learned DRP), on the following grounds, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other

Riaz Ali, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Int Tax Ward 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 790/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.790/2025 (धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Riaz Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.2-A, Puliyangudi North (International Taxation)-2(1), Street, Koothanallur, Tiruvarur, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-614 101. [Pan:Auepr2020H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri () This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025, Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Intl Taxn Ward 2(1) Che, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19 U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru Dated 26.12.2024. 2 Ita No.790/Chny/2025 (Ay 2018-19) Riaz Ali

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54

year 2018-19 u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 26.12.2024. 2 ITA No.790/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Riaz Ali 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel Ms. T.V. Muthu Abhirami, Advocate

Ambattur Clothing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1957/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1957/Chny/2017 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ambattur Clothing Ltd [Now Demerged & Known As M/S. Ambattur Fashion India Pvt. Ltd.] No.86/E-2, Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai– 600 058. (Pan:Aaaca-4127-D) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri. Sp Chidambaram, Advocate. Mr. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. 09.07.2025 31.07.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 21.06.2017 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed In Compliance To Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (Drp) Vide Order Dated 11.05.2017. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Readymade Garments To Ae & Non- Ae'S. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Υ.2013-14 On 30.11.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,57,20,670/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. A :-2-:

Section 92C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1) for the Assessment year 2013-14 passed in compliance to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (DRP) vide order dated 11.05.2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Company engaged in the business