“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

Sh. Bagga Singh, Jalandhar vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

draft assessment order which was sent to the assessee on 10.03.2023. The assessee filed objections against the above draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi. The DRP has disposed of the objections of the assessee on draft assessment order vide its order dated 08.12.2023. It directed

Jade Global Software Private Limited, Pune vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Pune

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1768/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: • considering foreign exchange gain and other income as non-operating income

Section 143(3)Section 144B

adjustment to the international transaction of Software Development Services of the assessee of Rs.6,59,01,734/-. 2.3 Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP upheld the order of the TPO. The assessing officer passed the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

Bock Compressors India Private, Bengaluru vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1484/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ves, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Uday Kakne, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144(5)Section 144CSection 234BSection 253Section 270ASection 920Section 92ASection 92C

passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Assessing Officer" or "AO") dated 27 June 2024 in pursuance of the Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") 2, Mumbai dated 24 May 2024, on the following grounds: I.T.A No. 1484/Ahd/2024 Bock Compressors India

Eastspring Investments India Equity Open Limited, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax - International Taxation Circle 2(2)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1219/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy Sshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 30.11.2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (“learned DRP”) under Section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised

Molvizadah Sons India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), Delhi

ITA 5297/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144C(10)Section 92C

Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 11.12.2023. 3. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and assailed the draft assessment order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DRP vide its order dated 26.09.2024 gave certain directions and then ... Pricing Issues: Adjustment Rs.42,949,937 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP'), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO" and the Learned AO (collectively referred as "the Revenue") erred in making an adjustment

Iqor India Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi

In the result ground number 2 is allowed and Grounds no

ITA 3114/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 May 2025

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

adjudication. 3. In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer in not following the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (in short’ Dispute Resolution Panel') 4. In ground no.4 & 5, the assessee has challenged the action of CPC Bangalore in making the certain disallowances ... that the TPO while giving effect order to the ld. DRP has observed as under: - “In view of the directions of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel, earlier adjustment is reduced from Rs.3,84,06,821/- to Rs.0. Assessing Officer is requested to make the necessary changes as discussed above

Nxp India P.Ltd(Successor of Nxp Semiconductors India P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8341/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

upward adjustment of Rs.23,13,22,901/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the TPO, the assessee filed its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and assailed the draft assessment order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DRP reduced the TP adjustments to the tune of Rs.21 ... section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP"), Bangalore dated 05 September 2018 under section 144C(5) of the Act (impugned order*) inter-alia on the following grounds: That

Nxp India P.Ltd(Formerly Known As Freescale Semiconductor India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi vs. JCIT Range-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 5763/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2013-14

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 92Section 92C

Length Price. The Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order. 3. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections to the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP'). The DRP vide its order dated 29.06.2017 partly accepted the contentions of the assessee and directed the TPO to recomputed ... void ab-initio. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in: 2. Making addition of INR 89,144,212 u/s 92 of the Act. 3. Notaccepting quantitative filters selected by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing documentation

Shri Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Gupta, Gandhidham vs. The ITO- International Taxation, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 269/RJT/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lalsaini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2019 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Bharatbhushan Kishanlal Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Gupta, (International Taxation) Prop. Of Aqua Shipping, Suit - Gandhidham – 370210 100, Grain Merchant Association Bldg., 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 297, Wd – 12B, Gandhidham – 370001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afcpg3849N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr. DR

Section 144CSection 172Section 172(4)Section 172(5)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

residents. The provisions of section 144C of the Act, is reproduced below (to the extent applicable for our analysis): “Reference to dispute resolution panel. 144C. (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 ... file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer, or (b) file his objections, if any, to such variation with,- (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and (ii) the Assessing Officer. (3) The Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment on the basis of the draft order, if- I.T.A No. 269/Rjt/2019

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] in pursuance of directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “DRP”] under section 144C(5) of the Act. The assessment pertains to the Assessment Year ... deduction of tax at source, the AO disallowed the said amount under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Before 20 the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the assessee submitted that the testing services were performed entirely outside India and the non- resident recipient had no business connection or permanent establishment

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5918/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92D

assessee vide letter dated 08/01/2018 informed that the company wishes to exercise its option to appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) instead of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Finally, 7 ITA 5918/Mum/2024 Here Solutions India Pvt Ltd the issues involved in the proposed variations are finalized and the additions made

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT (International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1160/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL

Sohan Lal Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds

ITA 711/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

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

Biogenex Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 68/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C(13) & 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 27.01.2022 as per the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") dated 23.12.2021 for the A.Y. 2017-18. ITA No.68/Hyd/2022 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “ 1. On the facts

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 426/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Ram Sehadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

issue to be decided is the point of initiation of limitation for passing a Final Assessment Order. Section 144C is entitled 'Reference to dispute resolution panel' and sets out the procedure for assessment in cases involving international transactions. The procedure contemplated commences with a Draft Assessment Order (DAO) being passed ... culminates with the passing of a Final Assessment Order in terms of Section 144C(13) of the Act, extracted below: 144C Reference to dispute resolution panel. .... (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything

Tata Consumer Products Limited (Erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Limited), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 385/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri Ram Sehadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT, DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

Sri Maharaja Refineries, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Erode

ITA 1956/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

For Respondent: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

passed on 26.09.2017 by making addition to the extent of Rs.7,51,83,428/-. Further, the assessee has filed appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel". The Dispute Panel has passed the order u/s 144(5) of the IT Act on 11.09.2017, Resolution Panel has rejecting the appeals Aggrieved by this ... necessity for the Appellant to submit any document, as the Appellant had filed all those documents relating to Section 40A(2) before the Dispute Resolution Panel itself, which is a wing of the Income Tax Department. However, the Assessing Officer obtained the details SOME HOW, OF COURSE NOT FROM

Sri Maharaja Refineries, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

ITA 1955/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1955 & 1956/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Sri Maharaja Refineries, # 128, Bhavani Road, Erode-638 004. Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Erode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaffs-8491-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Both Dated 07.06.2024 For

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92

Shri. Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2060/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024 & SP 67/Bang/2024 Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2059/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA No.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024 & SP 67/Bang/2024 Anantula Vijay Mohan, Hyderabad IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI