← 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

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3404/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(3)

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short), in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (ld. DRP for short), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y. 2020-21). 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, at the time of hearing, learned counsel

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Hyderabad

ITA 388/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bangalore (for short “DRP”). The DRP, vide its order u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dt.25.10.2016 after considering the objections rejected the adjustment of Rs.7.25 crores (supra) suggested by the TPO and directed the A.O. to make an addition of Rs.10,21,789/- towards shortfall of ALP adjustment by charging 5% mark up on the reimbursement of expenses transactions. Accordingly, the A.O. vide his assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13), dated 29.11.2016 f

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 92C

Rs.7.25 crores (approx.) as was suggested by the TPO. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections regarding the draft order of assessment before the Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bangalore (for short “DRP”). The DRP, vide its order u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dt.25.10.2016 after considering the objections rejected the adjustment ... Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Director of Income Tax (IT-TP), Hyderabad. 4. The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore. 5. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 6. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER

Inlogic Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3323/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3323/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2021-22 dated 23.10.2024 in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 28.09.2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: GROUND 1 & 2- GENERAL 1. The final assessment order dated ... Further, the assessee request via email on 23.07.2024 to :-12-: ITA. No:3323/CHNY/2024 consider the additional evidences submitted before the DRP. However, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) rejected the submission, citing non-compliance with DRP rules. The assessee contends that the substance of the submission should be considered, rather than

Schindler India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 4819/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2020-21 Schindler India Private Limited, The Asst. Commissioner Of Schindler House, Income Tax, Main Street, Vs. Circle-15(3)(2) Hiranandani Gardens, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai -400076 New Marine Lines, [Pan: Aaecs1548J] Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)Section 92C

learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) and the learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) under directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP"), erred in making an addition to the Appellant's total income of INR 1,35,83,96,724/- 1.2. On the facts and circumstances

Schindler India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Range 15(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7311/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'], consequent to the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP]-2, Mumbai,pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by this common order

Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cir-15(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7326/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'], consequent to the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP]-2, Mumbai,pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. Both the appeals were heard together and decided by this common order

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Officer dated 23.01.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel dated 09.12.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the matter on records. The relevant facts ... those of the preceding assessment years (AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19). 4.2. This fact has also been noted by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel in its directions dated 09.12.2022 in para no.4.2.3.1, which is reproduced as under:- “4.2.3.1 In view of above, the Panel takes a note that

Madhukar Wadhera, United States of America vs. AO Int Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Del, Civic Centre

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2220/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2220/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Madhukar Wadhera, Vs Assessing Officer, 23, Turf Lane Roslyn Heights, Intl. Tax Circle-3(1)(1), New York, Usa-11577 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adrpw7079B Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Sh. Tarun Chanana, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Ao, Circle Intl. Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi, Assessment Order Dated 28.06.2023 Framed In Consequence To The Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”)-2, New Delhi Directions Dated 08.02.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 55(2)Section 55(2)(b)

Year 2020-21 arises against the AO, Circle Intl. Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi, assessment order dated 28.06.2023 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-2, New Delhi directions dated 08.02.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Sh. Rajinder Singh Bedi, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 538/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Rajinder Singh Bedi, The Dcit, (Int.Taxation ), 1368, Sector 40-B, Vs Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afwpb3355A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

wherein specific grievances of the assessee have not been resolved by the DRP. This order reads as under : Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1 .Background of the proceedings before DRP- The present proceedings arise with reference to the draft assessment order ... International Taxation-Chandigarh. The assessee has filed grounds of objections under section 144C(2)(b) of the Income Tax 1961 on 28.10.2021 before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Delhi, against the draft order no. ITBA/AST/F/144C/2021-22/1036004460(1) dated 29.09.2021 for AY 2018-19. The draft order u/s 144C of the Income

Pos-Hyundai Steel Manufacturing India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxof Income Tax Circle 1 Ltu, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2485/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2485/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pos – Hyundai Steel Manufacturing Deputy Commissioner Of Income India Private Limited, Vs. Tax, F-70, Sipcot Industrial Park, Circle -1, Ltu, Irungattukottai S.O., Chennai. Kanchipuram – 602 117. [Pan:Aaacp-6484-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Srinath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Order passed by the Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Center ('Ld. AO') in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") under section 143(3) :-2-: ITA. No:2485/Chny/2024 r.w.s. 144C of the Income

Lions Gate India LLP, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 4970/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Bhumika Majethiya, AR (virtually)For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

consider relevant materials.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that a final assessment order was passed according to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, making an addition of Rs.7,20,38,319/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Wika Instruments India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2767/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(11)Section 144C(5)

Assessment Order under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act, dated 25.10.2024 to give effect to the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) passed u/s.144C(5) of the Act, dated 26.09.2024 emanating from Draft Assessment Order under section 144C(1) of ITA No.2767/PUN/2024 [A] the Act, dated ... been addressed in the regular assessment proceedings. 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel(“Ld. DRP”) erred in holding that the adjustments made under section 143(1) by the Assessing Officer, Centralized Processing Centre (“Assessing Officer (CPC”) cannot

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 8 and 9 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2436/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Acit, Circle-7(1)(1), Private Limited, 951-A, Rational House, Vs Aayakarbhawan, Mumbai- Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, 400020. Mumbai-400025. [Pan No. Aafca6819F] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 92C

assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 28.07.2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) passed in pursuance of direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, Mumbai for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Grounds Challenging validity of final order

Nanneboyina Kalyan Chakravarthy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, (Ward It), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.104/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nanneboyina Kalyan Chakravarthy V. Income Tax Officer C/O. C.R. Hemanthkumar Ward International Taxation Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex. H.No 9-14-4/7, Flat No. 7 M.G. Road, Vijayawada Sowbhagyaapartments Andhra Pradesh – 520002 Cbm Compound, Vip Road Andhra Pradesh - 530003 [Pan: Cuepk3530P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

without considering the objections, passed a draft Assessment Order under section 144C(1) of the Act. Assessee raised his objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (in short “Ld.DRP”) wherein the Ld. DRP dismissed the objections raised by the assessee. Ld. AO thereafter passed a final Assessment Order confirming the addition

Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar Karanth, Pune vs. Income Tax Department CIT(Drp-3), Mumbai

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 147/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 6

under section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.12.2024 for the A.Y.2018-19, emanating from the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C(5) of the Act, dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.147/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Mumbai erred in upholding the proposed addition made by the Ld. Income Tax Officer (IT) Ward-2, Pune (hereinafter called as the Assessing Officer) of Rs.7,75,000/- u/s.56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961in

Griptonite Games India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 199/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)Section 92C

determined by the TPO. 7. The assessee company objected to the adjustments made by the AO/TPO and filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore (in short “DRP”). 8. The DRP vide its order passed under Section 144(5) of the Act, dated 28.01.2022 though scaled down ... Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1),Signature Towers, Hyderabad 3 The Director of Income Tax (IT-TP), Hyderabad. 4 The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore. 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 6 Guard File By Order

Atmecs Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1681/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. K.J. Dhivya
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Income-tax Act, 1961 [The Act] dated 23.7.2024, in pursuance of the direction of the IT(TP)A No.1681/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 17 Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore [ld. DRP] dated 04.6.2024 in draft assessment order passed u/s. 144C(13) r.ws. 144C of the Act dated 22.9.2023, wherein ... Assessee is aggrieved and has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The Learned (Ld) Assessing Officer (AO)/Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DR P) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. DRP/AO have erred in rejecting the transfer pricing study of the Company

Sangeetha Duraisamy, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

ITA 525/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.525/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Sangeetha Duraisamy, The Income Tax Officer, No.2/369, Manjulam Pallam, International Taxation Ward, Vellalapatti, Coimbatore. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 012 [Pan: Etspd8813H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 147Section 56Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Ld.Assessing Officer passed in pursuance to directions of the Ld.DRP through its order vide No.ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2024-25/1071603899(1) dated 27.12.2024 of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru. 2.0 Brief factual matrix of the case is that based upon information available with the Ld.AO that the assessee had not disclosed purchase

Kishor Ramchand Peswani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax) Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1041/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1041/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Kishor Ramchand Peswani V/S. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward B/44 Shiv Society, 2Nd बिाम 3(3)(1), Mumbai Floor, Kopri Colony, Thane 6Th Floor, Income Tax (E), Maharashtra-400603 Office, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ayapp5403G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vikas B. Waghmare राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vikas B. WaghmareFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

values as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. Against the proposed addition, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP]. Vide order dated 22.11.2024, Ld. DRP held that the difference of Rs. 6,69,500/- is to be added as per the provisions of Section

M/S. Essar Shipping Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6521/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle 5(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Essar House, 11, Keshav Mumbai/Assessment Unit, Vs. Rao Khadye Marg, Mahalaxmi National Faceless Assessment Mumbai-400034. Centre, Room No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Gaikwad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi
Section 115B

Assessing Officer’] dated 29.10.2024 for assessment year 2021-22, pursuant to the M/s Essar Shipping Ltd M/s Essar Shipping Ltd direction of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The grounds raised f Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The grounds raised f Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The grounds raised ... length price of guarantee commission at length price of guarantee commission at ₹ 42,251,637. The ₹ 42,251,637. The learned dispute resolution panel approved the learned dispute resolution panel approved the above arm's-length price. length price. The comparison of the bank guarantee rate with the corporate