← All Phrases

“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
71
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
57
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
40
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
25
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
23
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

Satish Narayan Tarale, Belgavi vs. Intl.Taxation Ward, Panaji

ITA 55/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 055/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satish Narayan Tarale 35, Laxmi Narayan Niwas, 2Nd Stage, Hanuman Nagar, Belgaum-590001. Pan : Afkpt0032Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenges Din & Order No Itba/Ast/F/144/2024- 25/1072202908(1) Dt. 15/01/2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] U/S 144 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 253(6)Section 3Section 4Section 6(6)Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The assessee vide application dt. 22/04/2024 4. challaged the said proposition & the draft order before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru [‘Ld. DRP’]. The Ld. DRP vide its direction dt. 23/12/2024 accepted the assessee’s substantial explanation vis-à- vis submission and restricted

O.C Tanner India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5785/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, CA
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Income-tax Department [in short ‘the Ld. Assessing Officer’] for assessment year 2021-22, pursuant to the direction dated 30.08.2024 of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. DRP’]. In the grounds raised, the assessee is agitated with the addition of Transfer Pricing Adjustments, firstly ... variations proposed in the draft order, the Aggrieved by the variations proposed in the draft order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), along with additional along with additional

Vedanta Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 759/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harmeet Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 254

254/143(3)/144c r.w.s.144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)/TPO for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has filed an application dated

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

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

ITA 581/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 581/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ M/S. Tbea Shenyang Deputy Commissioner Of Transformer Group Income Tax Vs. Company Limited International Taxation, National Highway No.-8, Vadodara Villae : Miyagam, Karja, Vadodara, Gujarat - 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct4557F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Arpit Jain, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit. Dr 24/04/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 O R D E R Per Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 92C

filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO’) in accordance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel- 2, Mumbai (in short ‘DRP’) in terms of the directions of Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... draft order in accordance with the adjustment proposed by the TPO as above, against which the assessee raised objections to the DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) in terms of provision of Section 144 C of the Act and the DRP, after considering the objections of the assessee to the said draft

Nilesh Purshottam Ghodasara, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 92C

Delhi, dated 21.01.2023, u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), arising out of order of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP') dated 22.12.2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Ground ... erred in reopening the assessment as reopening was bad in law 2. Ground no. 2: Draft assessment referred to the Dispute resolution panel is without jurisdiction: a. The assessing officer erred in passing the draft assessment order without appreciating the fact that since the appellant had not filed the return

Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, Pune vs. ITO, (It) Ward 1, Pune

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 198/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 147Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

against the Assessment Order under section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act, for A.Y.2018-19 passed on 25.12.2024 emanating from order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, dated 26.11.2024 for A.Y.2018-19 emanating Draft Assessment Order under section ITA No.198/PUN/2025 [A] 144C(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2024. The grounds

Green Maiden A 2013, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri Hardik Nirmal/ MsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 153Section 61Section 63

Income Tax Act, 1960 (“the Act”) by the Assessing Officer ("AO”), pursuant to the directions dated 18/12/2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (“learned DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised ... read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel 1, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ld. DRP') on the following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to and independent of the others

Rohit Bedi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax-1(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 574/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 574/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Rohit Bedi, Vs Acit, 4-2/55, Mahavir Enclave, Bengali Intl. Tax-1(1)(2), Colony, Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajypb3017H Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Acit, Circle Int. Tax-1(1)(2), New Delhi, Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2024 Framed In Consequence To The Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”)-2, New Delhi Directions Dated 21.11.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147

arises against the ACIT, Circle Int. Tax-1(1)(2), New Delhi, assessment order dated 23.12.2024 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-2, New Delhi directions dated 21.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Case called

Spectraforce Technologies (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2853/PUN/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan and Shri Abhiroop Bhargav KFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

above additional ground forming part of Form 36 which ground is in addition to those submitted along with the Form 35A before the Dispute Resolution Panel. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out of the records are that the assessee is a Private Limited company ... contention is being accepted by the respective appellate authorities. 5. The order of ld. TPO challenged by the assessee before ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Ld. DRP vide its directions dated 20.09.2024 sustained the adjustments proposed by ld. TPO. Ld. Assessing Officer gave effect to the order

Shamsu Ul Zoha Jermain, Coulsdon, United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148

engaged the services of Shri Rakesh Roshan, a retired Income Tax Officer, to look after her income tax matters before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”). Due to advanced age and deteriorating health, Shri Rakesh Roshan is said to have handed over the responsibility of the case to Shri

Dadiba Kali Pundole, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomem Tax -17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3265/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Amey Wagle & Shri AzimFor Respondent: 07.07.2025
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194QSection 234Section 234CSection 246ASection 250

adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or section 144, to the income assessed, or to the amount

DCIT (It)-1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Avana Global Fzco, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2214/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Respondent: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Hardik

informed by Ld. Counsel the fact that these issues are also decided in favour of the assessee in subsequent year even by the Dispute Resolution Panel for AY 2011-12 by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal and Jurisdictional High Court in case of Safmarine (supra

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5475/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Unit, Income Tax Department u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act towards the direction dated 28.05.2025 & 24.09.2024 of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (“DRP”) pertaining to assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively. 2. At the time of hearing, it was stated that

Eli Lilly and Company (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3500/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesheli Lilly & Company (India) Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Plot No 92, Circle-1(1), Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana Jharsa, Gurgaon, Haryana, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace8901F

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT (DR)
Section 144C(5)Section 92C

appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 08.05.2024 and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated 30.05.2024 under section 144C(5) of the Income

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3472/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Unit, Income Tax Department u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act towards the direction dated 28.05.2025 & 24.09.2024 of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (“DRP") pertaining to assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively. 2. At the time of hearing, it was stated that

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Int. Taxational 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailedenred Pte Ltd., C/O. Walker Chandiok & Co. Llp, 16Th Floor, Tower Lll, One International Center, S B Marg, Prabhadevi (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai-400013. Pan : Aacce8636P V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax – International Taxation -2(2)(1), Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali Mhatre Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh/Ms. Shivali MhatreFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), pursuant to the directions dated 25/11/2024, issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel–1, Mumbai, (“learned DRP’), under section 144C(5) of the Act for the assessment year 2022–23. 2 2. In the appeal, the assessee has raised

Virendra Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (Th. VC)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

short Act ] for the assessment year 2020-21. That order of assessment was passed after considering the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel [ in short “DRP'] passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 12.12.2024. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. In the facts ... quashed as being illegal and void ab initio. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in giving directions to the Id. AO for making additions of Rs.55,00,000/- to the income of the assessee under Section

Ramesh Chintagumpala, Usa vs. ITO., Ward International Taxation, Nellore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 337/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69

r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 31.01.2025, as per the directions of ITA No.337/Hyd/2025 | 2 Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 23.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Ivy Software Development Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 73/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 21.01.2022, as per the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (“Ld. DRP”) u/s 144C(5) dated 22.12.2021 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

ACIT 531, Mumbai vs. Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1484/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

also upon restructuring of the tax department. Accordingly, the final assessment order was passed by the AO in Mumbai. b. Directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-1. New Delhi (DRP), dated 23 December 2016: • Passed u/s 144C(5). • By CIT 2, DRP-1 of the IT Act. • The objections (Volume