“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

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

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

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

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

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

Milacron India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Milacron India Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Plot No.93/2 & 91/4 Vs Ahmedabad. Phase-1,Gidc Vatva, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcc 0881 D

For Appellant: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92C

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2021–22, pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (“the DRP”), Mumbai, issued under section 144C(5) of the Act vide order dated 02.09.2024. 2 Facts of the case: 2. The assessee ... length interest rate to be charged. The DR further submitted that the TPO’s benchmarking analysis was duly 8 upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which found no infirmity in the ALP determination. 18. The DR also drew our specific attention to the observations recorded

Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National E Assessment Centre- Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 4260/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvs. Assessment Jungheinrich Lift Truck Unit/Nfac/Dcit India Private Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Delphi A Wing, Mumbai Central Avenue, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani, Business Mumbai. Park, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 076 Pan/Gir No. Aaccj7808G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain / Shri Siddesh Chaugule / Shri Rishab Parekh, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm: This Appeal Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Assessment Unit (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Ao) For Ay 2020-21 In Pursuance To The Direction Of Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 14.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43A

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel I ('learned DRP') on the following grounds: 1. Disallowance of foreign exchange loss on remittances under section 43AA of the Act amounting ... debited on expenditure side. The learned assessing officer disallowed the same holding that assessee could not furnish the complete detail. Before the learned dispute resolution panel the assessee evidences. Those evidences are uploaded on ITBA website and AO was asked to furnish the remand report. Before the passing

Mixpanel, Inc., San Francisco vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), International Tax, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1605/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nishank Vashistha, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

North Delhi Metro Mall Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1), C.R. Building, Delhi

ITA 5192/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22 North Delhi Metro Mall Private Vs Dcit, Limited, Circle-16(1), The Mall Road, Delhi. Khyber Pass Civil Lines, Delhi – 110 054, Pan: Aadcm7638N

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. DR

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

Appellant being aggrieved from the aforementioned draft assessment order, filed an objection against the same before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The case of assessee is that as far as the Receipt of supervision services from AE is concerned the construction of a mall is a multifaceted endeavor that requires

Humboldt Wedag India Private Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4726/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhumboldt Wedag India Private Ltd., Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asstt. A – 36, Mehtab House, Commission Of Income-Tax, Mohan Co-Op. Estate, Mathura Road, National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi – 110 044. Circle 10(1), Delhi. (Pan : Aaach7474G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajineesh Verma, Ca Ms. Hem Lata Verma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date Of Order : 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 05.09.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Subsequent To The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp)/Tpo Vide Order Dated 07.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Pertaining To Transfer Pricing Matters: Adjustment Rs.10,486,841 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. Drp'), The Learned Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Rajineesh Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 92CSection 92C(2)

passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)/TPO vide order dated 07.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22 raising following grounds of appeal :- “Pertaining to Transfer Pricing Matters: Adjustment Rs.10 ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Ld. DRP'), the Learned Transfer Pricing 2 Officer (Ld. TPO') and the Learned AO (collectively referred as "the Revenue") erred in making an adjustment of Rs.10,486,841 to the total income

Aquity Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4817/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Ojha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 234B

read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 07/06/2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (“learned DRP”) under Section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. In this appeal, the assessee

Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kadayiruppu vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kochi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 598/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21 Plant Lipids (P) Ltd. Kadayiruppu Po Kolenchery Dcit, Vs. Kerala 682 311 Corporate Circle-2(1) Kochi Pan No : Aabcp6061C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Thomson Thomas, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Perkeshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ao, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Dated 19.6.2024 Vide Din No.Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2024- 25/1065876641(1) For The Ay 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: Plant Lipids (P) Ltd., Kolencherry, Kerala Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 144CSection 80GSection 92C

Kolencherry, Kerala Page 3 of 8 3.1 On receipt of Draft Order u/s 144C (l), assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short “DRP”) u/s 144C against the variations proposed by the Assessing Officer.By its order dated 31.05.2024, the ld. DRP reduced the additions in respect

Ernst and Young U.S. LLP, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2168/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh.C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2) (2), Delhi ("Ld. AO") in conjunction with the directions passed by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") in the case of Appellant for AY 2020-21, assessing the income of the Appellant for the relevant assessment year

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

Pronouncement: 19/05/2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These three appeals by the three different assessees are directed against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (in short “DRP-2”), vide order dated 20.04.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 arises out of the assessment orders dated ... case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") dated 23.05.2023, the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") dated 20.04.2023 and the draft assessment order dated 24.09.2022 passed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for Assessment Year

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

M/S Essar Shipping Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4440/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Piyush Chaturvedi

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 41Section 92B(2)Section 92C

short) passed u/s.144 r.w.s.144C(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP' in short), relevant to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' for short) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal and further filed ... also been brought to our notice that an identical situation arose in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 where the Dispute Resolution Panel(‘DRP') vide its order dated 18.09.2017 held that transfer pricing regulations do not apply to the assessee to the extent of operations carried out through

Bando India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 606/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

short ‘TPO’) on 04.02.2016. The TPO after making certain adjustments, passed the order. Thereafter, the assessee filed its objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP') and assailed the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DRP could not find any force in the submission

Manavi Goel Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 626/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: us submitted that out of three appeals [ITA No.524/Mum/2025, ITA No.626/Mum/2025 and ITA 374/Mum/2025] preferred by the same Assessee listed for hearing today, two the appeals [ITA No.524/Mum/2025, ITA No.626/Mum/2025] can be dismissed as being duplicate appeals since the Assessee has impugned the same Assessment Order dated 26/12/2024 passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions given by the DRP vide order, dated 26/11/2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the directions issued by Commissioner of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel 3), Mumbai-3 [for short ‘DRP’] on 26/11/2024 under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 has been challenged

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation ) -3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1427/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270A

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 27/11/2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: ITA No.1427/Mum/2025 ... quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP) erred in holding the amount for business support services of INR 15.59,23,979 as 'Fees for technical services' under Article

Natems Solar Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 140/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234Section 234A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and the Ld. TPO, under the directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP’), erred in rejecting the Appellant’s benchmarking analysis which demonstrated that payment of Interest on CCDs was at arm’s length and further ... aforesaid additions. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee objected to the draft assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144C(1) dated 15.02.2023 before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bangalore (“DRP”). The DRP though vacated the proposed adjustment of the “reimbursement of expenses” of Rs. 7,50,937/- but upheld the remaining

Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 627/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of No. 14, 1St Floor, Kumarappa Street, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sevenwells, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aavts7941K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 111Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 139Section 154Section 158BSection 250

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; †or (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

Manavi Goel Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 524/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax ) Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailowens Corning (Singapore) Pte Ltd., C/O Owens Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai ............... Appellant Maharashtra - 400076 Pan : Aabco5666L V/S Dcit (It) – 3(2)(2) 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, ……………… Respondent Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – 2 “1.0 Re.: Treating fabrication ... charges received as fees for technical services: 1.1 The Assessing Officer (AOY Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has erred in taxing the fabrication charges received by the Appellant of Rs. 18,73,16,820 during the year under consideration by treating the same as fees for technical services' in terms

Garimella Venkata Appala Sarma, Visakhpatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 149/VIZ/2025[20189-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Garimella Venkata Appala Sarma V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – (International Taxation) Flat No. L-523, Mk Gold Coast Income Tax Office Yendada, Visakhapatnam – 530045 Infinity Towers, Sankaramatam Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530016 [Pan: Anppg5223K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 144Section 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 69A

assessment order under section 144C of the Act Vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/F/144C/2023-24/1062057828(1) dated 05.03.2024. 3. Assessee, thereafter filed his objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on 04.04.2024. DRP sought for the Remand Report from the Ld. AO with respect to the additional evidences submitted by the assessee ... final assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before us by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Bengaluru is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income