← 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

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1452/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

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

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Ncome Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1451/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

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

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

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

ITA 977/MUM/2021[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

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

read with section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 29/12/2014 passed by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("learned DRP”) under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11. ITA No.2458/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 2 In this appeal ... Ground 1 - General On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel- II (DRP') and the final assessment order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai ("DCIT

Jubilant Foodworks Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle, 5(1)(1)., Gautam Buddha Nager

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

ITA 2310/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 924ASection 928Section 92CSection 92F

r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act’”] dated 27.07.2022 passed after giving effect to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [“Ld.DRP”] given vide its order dated 30.05.2022 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return ... circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO) in pursuance to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. DRP), erred in not accepting the returned income of INR 349,65, 94,860/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Sri. Nithin Bagamane, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalaore

ITA 372/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Sri. Nithin Bagamane, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 371/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Precision Camshafts Ltd., Solapur vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (NFAC), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 92(3)Section 928Section 92C

r.w.s 144C(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2020-21 dated 25.07.2024, emanating from order of Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C(5) of the Act for A.Y.2020-21, ITA No.1962/PUN/2024 [A] dated 10.06.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “A. Transfer Pricing Issues ... Accordingly, proposed an addition of Rs.30.98 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, Assessee filed appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). The DRP upheld the order of TPO regarding Corporate Guarantee Commission. Nowhere, either the DRP or TPO has mentioned how they have arrived

Abilash Rao Joseph, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

ITA 105/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghu RamFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

./2024 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed consequent to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is incorrect and unsustainable on facts and in law. 2. The AO/DRP erred in making addition of Rs.26,37,000 by invoking provisions

Sivakarthick Raman, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Madurai

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

ITA 281/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 15Section 15(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

Rs.52,22,590/-. 10. However, pursuant to scrutiny proceedings, the AO has in his Final :-6-: ITA. No.:281/Chny/2025 assessment order and the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) in the directions issued, disallowed the exemption claimed and hence the assessee preferred present appeal before us. 11. The ld.AR for the assessee ... submitted that the detailed facts are summarised in Annexure to Form 35A submitted before the Dispute Resolution Panel at Pages 271 to 303 of the Paper book filed. Grounds 1, 2 and 3 12. The ld.AR submitted that the AO has in pursuance of the Directions of the DRP erred

Rane Nsk Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 3017/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3017/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

Assessing Officer (A.O) u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 11.09.2024. Rane NSK Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -: 2. The assessee-company

Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DDIT/ADIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result, the grounds

ITA 711/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasian Honda Motor Co. Vs. Dcit, Ddit/Adit Ltd., No.14, Sarasin (International Tax) Building, Surasak Road, Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Khwaeng, Silom Khet Aayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Bangrak, Bangkok Sector 24, Gautam Budh Metropolis, Nagar, Noida, Thailand, 10500 Uttar Pradesh – 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaica2531P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

pursuant to directions dated 21.12.2024 of the Learned P a g e | 2 Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (AY: 2022-23) Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (hereinafter referred to as “DRP”) under Section 144C(5) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts, leading to instant appeal are that, the assessee

Shahi Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 8, Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 710/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 30Section 92C

adjustment accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed by the AO. The assessee preferred appeal against the draft assessment order before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) vide its order dated 26.03.2021 reduced the adjustments proposed by TPO and _ accordingly, the final assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C

K.R.Pulp and Papers Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

ITA 4456/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92C

restricted to such extent by the AO in the draft assessment order. Against this draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) who vide its order dated 28.12.2021 u/s 144C(5) of the Act, confirmed the adjustments proposed by the TPO on account of disallowance

K R Pulp and Papers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-19, Delhi

ITA 755/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 801ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

restricted to such extent by the AO in the draft assessment order. Against this draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) who vide its order dated 28.12.2021 u/s 144C(5) of the Act, confirmed the adjustments proposed by the TPO on account of disallowance ... resultant cost of excess team is nil. Therefore he made an adjustment of ₹ 1,035,745,275 on this account. The learned dispute resolution panel also agreed with the view of the learned transfer pricing officer. 38. We are not in agreement with the findings of the lower authorities

Rolls-Royce India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Tp 3(2)(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 252/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the ITA No.- 252/Del/2022 Rolls- Royce India Pvt. Ltd. directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order dated 21.09.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18. 1.1 The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “That on the facts ... case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO")/Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("Ld. TPO') based on directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has: General Ground 1. erred by making adjustment/ disallowances of INR 6.96.67,905 to the total income filed the Appellant. Final assessment order

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM By way of this appeal, the Revenue assails the order dated 23.12.2014, passed by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel- 2(DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") for A.Y. 2010-11. ITA No.- 7392/Del/2017 M/s NEC Technologies ... draft assessment order passed on dated 21.03.2014. 4. Thereafter, assessee filed objection in Form 35A on 24-04-2014, before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order dated 21.03.2014, set up under relevant chapter relating to procedure for assessment and the Ld. DRP after consideration the submissions

Ashok Appaji Patil, Belgaum vs. Intl. Taxation Ward, Panaji

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

ITA 49/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.49/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) Ashok Appaji Patil, Vs. I T O, 3338/1A,Sankalp International Taxation, Building, 3 Floor, Gondhalli Galli, Reac, Belagavi-590001, Panaji-403001, Karnataka. Goa. Pan/Gir No:Aqopp2917M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Letter Dt 1-07-2025. Respondent By : Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S 144 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Action Of Lower Authorities Drp/Ao Partly Sustaining The Addition Without Providing

For Appellant: Letter dt 1-07-2025For Respondent: Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)

Assessing Officer passed u/s 144 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the action of lower authorities DRP/AO partly sustaining the addition ... 144C(1) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the assessee has filed the objections in Formno-35A with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP has dealt on the objections, submissions and remand report and issued directions to the A.O for deleting the addition u/sec69

Ssnc Fintech Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 916/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Ketan K. VedFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 920

r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] in pursuance to the Directions dated 14.06.2024 of the Disputes Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru, passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA.No.916/Hyd./2024 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant ... Telangana. The DCIT, Circle-8(1), Signature Towers, 9t Floor, Opp. 2. | Botanical Gardens Road, Whitefields, Kondapur, Hyderabad — 500 -084. Telangana. The Disputes Resolution Panel-1, Kendriya Sadan, 4t» Floor, C-Wing, Bengaluru — 560 034. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. The DR, ITAT “A” Bench, Hyderabad. DR) Guard File. //By Order

Laqshya Media Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1339/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhaillaqshya Media Limited, Jaganlaxmi, Laqshya House, Next To Rameshwar Temple, Saraswati Baug, Society Road, Jogeshwari (E), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400060 Pan : Aaacl5004C V/S Acit – 10(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

free loan to subsidiary companies was rejected. Hence disallowance of interest was done amounting to Rs 4,51,66,441. 7 21. The dispute resolution panel following its earlier decision upheld the assessing officer's action. Against this order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 22. We have heard