“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

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2409/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92CSection 92F

passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 23.11.2021 and 07.06.2022 and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) read with section 144B of the Income ... Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the act pursuant to the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") is bad in law and void-ab- initio as it is not in conformity with the provisions of section 144C

Lava International Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 532/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

Enterprises (AE'). on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO") and Dispute Resolution Panel (*DRP'). 2.1 That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant has not incurred any cost

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 32/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), as per the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (“Ld. DRP”) on 05.10.2017 & 26.10.2018 for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Since these appeals are inter-related, they are heard together

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2130/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92B

Prakash Lal Potluri, Usa vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1284/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.567/Hyd/2023 & 1284/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B.Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148

acceptance qua draft order with the Ld. AO or had to file his objection, if any, qua the draft order before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) and the Ld. AO within 30 days of receipt of draft order by him. The assessee filed his objection against the draft

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

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

ITA 194/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Adp Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-1(1), Pan: Aanca8983A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ca Kc Devdas, Ca Kranthi Palivela & Ca Mrudulatha Revenue By: M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/04/2025

For Appellant: CA KC Devdas, CA Kranthi PalivelaFor Respondent: M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) as per the direction of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”), Bangalore on 31/01/2023 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 2 “Based on the facts ... dated 31st January, 2023 on the following grounds: 1. The Ld. AO/ Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’) and the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. DRP’) erred in not undertaking an objective comparative analysis and inter alia rejecting the following comparable companies as not comparable to the IT Enabled

Aptivaa Middle East Fze, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274Section 6(3)(ii)

section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the Income of the Appellant at INR 4,68,29,657/- instead of nil returned income is contrary

K C Cottrell India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, National E- Assessment Centre, New Delhi

ITA 777/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S K.C. Cottrell India P. Vs. Assessing Officer, Ltd., National E-Assessment Suite No.506,513-514 Centre, New Delhi Spazedge Tower-B, 5Th Floor, Sector-47, Gurgaon-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcl5527H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92Section 92CSection 93

appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 17.11.2020 and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated 31.10.2019 under section 143(3) read with section

Transunion International Inc., Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2698/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. a/w

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 47

relevant AY and proposed various additions/disallowances. Petitioner filed objections under section 144C(2)(b) of the Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") on 27th January 2020. A notice was issued by the DRP and Petitioner responded by filing relevant documents/evidence in support of objections raised by it. Finally ... amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment; (xxix) where the eligible assessee files his objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel, the National e-Assessment Centre shall upon receipt of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under sub-section (5) of section 144C

Ariston Group India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessement Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC and the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1680/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 37(1)Section 92C

adjustment of INR 6,53,65,772/- 1.1 The Ld. AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in determining the arm's length price

Hammond Power Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), as per the direction of 2 Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") dated 24.01.2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Learned (Ld) Assessing ... Officer (AO)/Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. DRP/AO is not justified in making an adjustment u/s 92CA of Rs. 1,32,90,250/- 3. The Ld. DRP/Ld. AO erred in disregarding the transfer pricing study report

Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., Washington, Usa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 869/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23 Expeditors International Of Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Washington Inc. 1015 Third Income Tax Circle -1 (2) (2) Avenue Seattle Washington International Taxation, New Usa 981041190 Usa 98104 Delhi Pan No. Aacce4315R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment year (“AY”) 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That on the facts ... read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") pursuant to the directions issued by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") is erroneous and bad in law as well as in facts. 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., England vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 625/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.625/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Jc Bamford Excavators Ltd., Acit Rocester, Uttoxeter, St 14, Vs. (International Taxation), 5Jp, Staffordshire, England. Circle-2(1)(2), Room No.508, 5Th Floor, D-Block, Civic Centre, Pan No.Aabcj6004D Newdelhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Assessing Officer (“AO”) has erred in completing 1 the assessment of the Appellant not in pursuance to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”), and without giving due consideration to the submission of the Appellant, thus, the final assessment order passed is bad in law and void

Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1076/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C(2)Section 92D

passed under s. 144C r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] in pursuance to the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Transfer pricing matter “That on the facts ... draft assessment order incorporating the order passed by the TPO. Aggrieved with the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). However, the DRP has not provided relief to the assessee. 9. The final set of comparable companies selected by the TPO have been tabulated

Meethale Purayil Hashim, Payangadi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Int. Tax, Kozhikode

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

ITA 210/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Muhammed Ashraf, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjith Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

assessment order, the appellant filed objection to the said addition contending that the issue of noticed u/s.148 is barred by limitation. However, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the appellant had failed to respond to the notices issued u/s.148A(b) dated 26th

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Mahasang Haryana, Faridabad vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh/Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 92C

assessment. The assessee was not satisfied with the assessment so proposed by the Assessing Officer and did raise the grievances before the Dispute Resolution Panel but without any success. It was in this backdrop that an arm’s length price adjustment of Rs 2,09,00,179 was made

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT, Int.Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 1917/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Soregam Sa Vs. Acit B-4051, Rue Pres De La Gurgaon Tour 55 Vaux Sous Chevremont Belgium (Appellant) (Respondent)

filed the present appeal against the order final assessment order dated 22.06.2022 passed under Section in pursuance to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment year (“AY”) 2012-13. 2. The learned AR stating that assessee had opted to avail VSVS scheme 2024 for which

S Sumathi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Internation Taxation Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 151/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.K.BalasubramanianFor Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 147

year 2018-19 u/s.147 r.ws. 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter the ‘Act’) in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru dated 27.12.2024. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted a letter dated 10.03.2025 wherein stated the present appeal

Meelendra Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 923/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Motiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar- Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and making the addition of Rs. 5,91,325/- as per direction of Dispute Resolution Panel. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow ... wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and that no cogent evidence was submitted. The assessee has raised further objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Before the DRP, the assessee submitted that the amount of expenditure considered by the AO for the purpose of disallowing 10% is incorrect

Capita India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Mumbai

ITA 4954/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], as per the directions issued by Commissioner of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel (1)), Mumbai-2 [for short `DRP'] on 11/06/2024 under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Assessee