← 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

Friday Storytellers LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5546/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Karan Thaker a/w

Unit, Income-tax Department ( in short the Assessing Officer or AO) for assessment year 2021-22, pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 22.08.2024. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in making upward adjustment of Rs. 2,09,75,436, on account of Line Production Charges incurred by the assessee, during the year under consideration. The action of the Id. DRP and Id. AO is illegal

Ucweb Mobile Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Assessment Unit, Inocome Tax Department, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department ("AO") in pursuance of the Directions dated 29.05.2024 issued under Section 144C(5) by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi ("DRP"), on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other: 1. Impugned order is time barred, invalid

Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dct, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A

under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 [or section 153A or section 153C] in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order,] [(e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub section

Gaurav Banerjee, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (It), 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2068/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 57Section 69

only after the DRP has issued directions. We find that the assessee has sufficient reasons for not furnishing the said documents before the Dispute Resolution Panel which was not filed before any of the authorities below and therefore we are allowing the said application filed by the assessee and accepted

Beauty Etoile Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4073/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 270ASection 948

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT, Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1064665316(1) dated 06.05.2024, passed u/s. 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), for Assessment Year ... case and in law, the impugned final assessment order passed by the Ld. AO in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP') under section 143(3) read with section 144C read with section 1448 of the Act, is bad in law and void

Coursera Inc., California vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1958/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandracoursera Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2)(1) 381, East Evelyn Avenue International Taxation, Mountain View, Civic Centre, Minto Road California United States New Delhi – 110002 Of America - 94040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc4141K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, &For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

under section 144C of the Income Tax Act (i) TPO/AO are directed to complete the assessment as per the above directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. (ii) In view of Section 144C(13), quoted below, TPO/AO are directed not to make any further inquiries with the assessee ... read as a part of the order. (iv) While passing the final order, TPO/AO shall incorporate the reasons given by the Dispute Resolution Panel in respect of various objections, at appropriate places in the final order.” 10. Thus, the DRP has maintained its view as taken for the Assessment Years

L.S Cable India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. DCIT, Circle13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] L S Cable India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.28-31, Sector-5, Cirlce-13(1), Phase-Ii, Hsiidc Gc Bawal, New Delhi Rewari, Haryana-23501. Pan-Aabcl3621Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2025

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 24.08.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 in terms of the directions given by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) vide its order dt. 23.06.2022 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private ... material available on record. For the sake of ready reference, the Provisions of section 144C are reproduced as under:" “144C. Reference to dispute resolution panel. (1) The Assessing Officer shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, in the first instance, forward a draft of the proposed order

Volkswagen Group Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Assessment Unit Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1950/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Volkswagen Group Technology V National Faceless Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., S Assessment Center, Embassy Techzone, 9Th Floor, Assessment Unit, Delhi. 1.3 Congo Building, Rajiv Gandhi, Infotech Park, Infotech Park Hinjavadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcv1368L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

No.1950/PUN/2024 [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') / Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in proposing to enhance the income of the Appellant by INR 15,77,44,750 by holding that the international transaction ... comparable companies is enclosed at page 189 of the paperbook.” Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order the Dispute Resolution Panel and Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. In this case

Emerson Electric Company (India)Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2) (1) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 2323/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Emerson Electric Company (India) Dcit, Range-1(2)(1), Mumbai Private Limited, Delphi ‘B’ Wing, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, 601-603, Orchard Avenue, Mumbai Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400076. [Pan No. Aaace1260B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 254(1)

additions made in assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) dated 31.07.2022, passed in pursuance of direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 03.06.2022.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Ground no. 1 Final Assessment order passed in the absence of jurisdiction ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO based on the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), erred in making adjustments of Rs. 30,59,41,940 to the total income of the Appellant. 5. Ground no. 5-TP adjustment

Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(1)Section 928Section 92D

objection against the draft assessment 6 Louis Vuitton India Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT order passed u/s 144C of the Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel. After considering the objection of the Assessee, the DRP vide order dated 30/06/2024 issued directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act. In compliance with

Kodiyil Mohammed Rijaz, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward Int.Tax, Kozhikode

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

ITA 188/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147

addition of Rs.24,22,000 to the returned income of the assessee. The additions made by the AO were affirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel, and thereafter, the AO passed the final assessment order. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee has come up in appeal before

Alpa India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 457/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Sri PVSS Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

assessment year 2018-19. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The A.O. / Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The A.O. / DRP erred in holding that the other incomes mentioned ... crores (approx.) 6 Alpla India Private Limited vs. DCIT ITA 457/Hyd/2022 7. The assessee company filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore (in short, “DRP”). 8. The DRP after necessary deliberations directed the A.O. to delete the proposed TP adjustment on the license fee paid

Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1371/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalteacher Retirement System Of Texas, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400028 Pan: Aaatt9387R V/S Acit (It) – 4(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Anish Thacker Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234CSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in pursuance of the directions under section 144C(5) of the Act issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - II, Mumbai ('Ld. DRP*) dated 29 November 2024 on the following grounds, each of which is without prejudice to and independent of the other

New Skies Satellites Bv, C/O Ernst and Young LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 983/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law; the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('the Panel') erred in not directing the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO") to pass appropriate orders holding that the Appellant is not liable ... assessee treating it as royalty and alternatively as fee for technical services. 1.2 Aggrieved against this, the assessee filed objections before Learned Dispute Resolution Panel who following the order of the earlier years confirmed the adjustment. Thereafter, the AO vide impugned order in pursuance of the direction

Sheladia Associates Inc, Secunderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1401/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1401/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Sheladia Associates Inc. Vs. Adit (International Secunderabad Taxation)-2 Pan : Aafcs7792F Hyderabad

For Appellant: Smt.V.Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 270ASection 40Section 44C

assessment order dated 19.12.2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) dated 11.12.2024 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act for the assessment year 2022-23. 2 M/s Sheladia Associates Inc. 2. The assessee

General Organization for Social Insurance, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation) Circle 2(3)(2) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1408/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234CSection 270ASection 274

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 22/11/2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2022-23. ITA No.1408/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised ... India-Saudi Arabia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA"): 1. 1. The learned ACIT, under the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), erred in classifying the Rights Entitlement (RE) as akin to right shares and thereby taxing them under Article 13(5) of the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4301/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234CSection 270A

read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 2 ('DRP') on following grounds, each of which are without prejudice to one another: Payment of royalty for central services 1. Whether

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.(Formerly Known As Vodafone Digilink Ltd Which Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 4189/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Vodafone Income Tax, Circle 26(2), Digilink Ltd Which Stands Vs. New Delhi Amalgamated With Vodafone Mobile (Jurisdiction Realigned From Service Limited) Circle 17(1), New Delhi) C-48, Phase-Ii, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110020. Pan No. Aaaca 3202 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194HSection 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

Tribunal vide order dated 14.03.2018 reported in (2018 117 ITAT 430)(Delhi Tribunal) upheld the stand of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. dispute resolution panel (DRP) that depreciation was in the nature of unascertained liability. Further the Ld. counsel submitted that the appeal was filed by the assessee against

Thomas George, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Circle Intl.Txn, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 124/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

assessee is wrongly computed the capital gain. 4. Aggrieved with the draft order of the AO, the assessee filed her objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and argued that the AO is not correct in re-computing the long term capital gains by adopting the value of the land

Suja Mariamma George, Thiruvananthapuram vs. DCIT, Circle Intl.Txn, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications are dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Veni Raj, CIT-DR

assessee is wrongly computed the capital gain. 4. Aggrieved with the draft order of the AO, the assessee filed her objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and argued that the AO is not correct in re-computing the long term capital gains by adopting the value of the land