← 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

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

270A for underreporting of income is being initiated. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The case set up before DRP was that the capital gains arising on sale of units of equity oriented mutual funds is not covered ... Delhi ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') as per the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP') under section 144C(13) of the Act on following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd, Malaysia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Civic Center, Delhi

ITA 3370/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194L

read with section 194LD. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the Appellant preferred to file its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Further, by way of application dated 16 March 2023, the Appellant also raised an additional objection before the DRP seeking the benefit of the concessional tax rate

Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

ITA 2417/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs Acit, Ltd., Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), #02-00, Robinson Road, New Delhi. Singapore – 688898 Pan: Aadci8182P Assessment Year: 2021-22 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs. Acit, Ltd., Malaysia, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Level 56, Tower-1, Petronas New Delhi. Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia/ 6Th Floor, Emaar Mgf, The Palm Square, Golf Course Ext. Road, Sector-66, Gurgaon – 122 102. Pan: Aadci8182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194LSection 3

read with section 194LD. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the Appellant preferred to file its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Further, by way of application dated 16 March 2023, the Appellant also raised an additional objection before the DRP seeking the benefit of the concessional tax rate ... common to both the years; “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘Ld.AO’) / Ld. Dispute Resolutions Panel (‘Ld. DRP’) erred in disregarding the claim of the Appellant to tax the interest income earned on Optionally Convertible Debentures and Compulsorily Convertible Debentures

Fil India Business & Research Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), C.R Building, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 1948/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 920Section 92CSection 92C(3)

r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) for Assessment Year 2017-18 after the order of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP, in short) dt. 21.09.2021. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business ... case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (‘AD')/Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and upheld by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP') is bad in law and erroneous. Transfer Pricing (TP) Grounds 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case

Barclays Global Service Centre Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 694/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.694/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Barclays Global Service Centre V The Assistant Private Limited, S Commissioner Of Income 5 To 12 Floor(Part), Building Tax, G2 Gera Commerzone Sez, Circle-1(1), Pune. Survey No.65, Kharadi, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadcb1173D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Riddhi Maru – Ca(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Assessment Order dated 15.07.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19, emanating from order of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C(5) of the Act, dated 21.06.2022. ITA No.694/PUN/2022 [A] 2. At the outset, the Assessee filed a letter dated 09.06.2025. The relevant paragraph

Ntt India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2491/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanntt India Private Vs. Assessment Unit/Nfac/Dcit Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 1701-1704, B Wing, One Mumbai Bkc, Level 17, G-Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. C-65, Bandra Mumbai. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacd2145G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271ASection 92C

account of payment of management fees: 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP')/Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') / Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') have erred, in making transfer pricing adjustment

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhn, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2073/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

passed u/s.144(1)(a) r.w.s.147 r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act, 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment proposed, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP in reply to AO’s letter dated 06.01.2023 stated (DRP’s letter dated 09.01.2023) that assessee’s objections have been rejected ... Form No.35A dated 30.04.2022 for the alleged non-adherence to the procedure laid down in Rule 4(3)(a) of the Income-tax Dispute Resolution Panel Rules, 2009. The AO upon receipt of such confirmation dated 09.01.2023 from the office of DRP, Bangalore passed final reassessment order dated

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhd, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1072/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

passed u/s.144(1)(a) r.w.s.147 r.w.s.144C(1) of the Act, 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment proposed, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP in reply to AO’s letter dated 06.01.2023 stated (DRP’s letter dated 09.01.2023) that assessee’s objections have been rejected ... Form No.35A dated 30.04.2022 for the alleged non-adherence to the procedure laid down in Rule 4(3)(a) of the Income-tax Dispute Resolution Panel Rules, 2009. The AO upon receipt of such confirmation dated 09.01.2023 from the office of DRP, Bangalore passed final reassessment order dated

Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund A Series of Vieif, Mumbai vs. Assisatnt Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4655/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi, AR
Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(3)Section 70

taxable short-term capital gains/(loss) Nil 15,14,79,912 4. The assessee raised objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the DRP upheld the computation done by the AO. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant

D S Trading, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

dated 21.11.2023) on account of outstanding receivable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per provision of Section 144C(2) of the Act. The Ld. DRP rejected the objections filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer

Aon Consulting Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissoner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 4415/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 154Section 253

disallowance of Rs.77,64,077/-. 3. Aggrieved with the draft order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed its objections to the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP') and assailed the order of the Assessing Officer on both as well as domestic issue and transfer pricing issue ... r.w.r.8D. 7. In ground no.7, the assessee has disputed the addition of Rs.33,66,180/- (remains in dispute after the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel) 8. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, contended that the assessee has suo-moto made a_ disallowance of Rs.11

Ajinkya Madhyamik Shikshak Sevak Sah. Patsanstha, Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

thereafter, may be filed within the time provided under that Section or by 31 May 2021, whichever is later, b) Objections to Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C of the income-tax Act 1961, for which the last date of fling under that Section is 1st April

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Civic Centre, Near Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

dated 04.03.2024 and 05.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel all dated 27.02.2024 pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case: The M/s Trans ... above draft assessment order was passed on 31.05.2023 and against the said draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objection before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel on 28.06.2023. The ld. Dispute Resolution Panel vide order dated 27.02.2024 issued a direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act, wherein, the Ld. Dispute

Trans World International Llc, Wilmington, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1961/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

dated 04.03.2024 and 05.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act') arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel all dated 27.02.2024 pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1960/Del/2024 (AY 2013-14) 2. Brief facts ... above draft assessment order was passed on 31.05.2023 and against the said draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objection before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel on 28.06.2023. The ld. Dispute Resolution Panel vide order dated 27.02.2024 issued a direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act, wherein, the Ld. Dispute

Trans World International Llc, Delaware, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (International Taxation) - 3(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1960/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 148

dated 04.03.2024 and 05.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel all dated 27.02.2024 pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1960/Del/2024 (AY 2013-14) 2. Brief facts

Geopetrol International Inc., Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation1(3)1, New Delhi

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

ITA 2416/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sanchit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: S/Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT- DR &
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 234ASection 282Section 40Section 92C

making additions of Rs. 3,60,96,805 without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. That the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)erred on facts and in law by affirm the disallowance proposed by the assessing officer in his draft assessment order of the cess paid amounting ... ground that Cess paid is in the nature of tax, hence, not allowable. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against said disallowance. The DRP wrongly understood ‘Cess’ as ‘education cess’ and upheld the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act. The ld. Counsel submitted that

Mcleod Russel India Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 458/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the due date of filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law affirming the order of the Assessing Officer on the following ground

Mecleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

cases. The assessee is aggrieved with the impugned orders and has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law affirming the order of the Assessing Officer on the following ground

Schwab Fundamental Emerging Markets Equity Ety, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2133/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi; Shri Lekh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the directions issued by Commissioner of Income Tax [Dispute Resolution Panel (2)], Mumbai-1 [for short ‘DRP’], on 05/12/2024 under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Assessment Year

M/S Tega Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2597/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 244ASection 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

adjustment at ₹ 24,79,701/- vide order passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated 25.10.2023. The assessee filed an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel which after hearing the assessee’s contention issued directions/order u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 19.09.2024. Subsequent to these directions the total transfer