← 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

Ab Sciex Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 804/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44B

Year 2022-23 arises against the DCIT, Circle International Tax-1(1)(1), Delhi, assessment order dated 23.01.2025 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-1, New Delhi directions dated 09.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Standard and Poors South Asia Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3792/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 928Section 92C

r.w.s.144C (13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)/TPO for Assessment Year 2017-18 raising following grounds of appeal :- “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Unit ... Pricing Officer ("the learned TPO") in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP"). Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. 1. The learned Assessing

Deep Kothari, Usa vs. Asssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2250/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Rachesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rini Handa, Sr. DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Year 2014-15 arises against the ACIT, Circle International Tax-2(1)(2), Delhi, assessment order dated 13.03.2024 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-1, New Delhi directions dated 26.02.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(1)(2) [‘AO’] in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel [‘DRP’] making addition under section 69 of the Act is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Re: Reopening of the assessment 2. That on facts and circumstances

Denagamage Proboth Mahela Desilva Jayawardene, Mumbai vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3272/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Reema Grewal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 244ASection 254(1)

Year 2021-22 arises against the DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), International Taxation, Delhi, assessment order dated 31.10.2023 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-1, New Delhi directions dated 18.09.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... Income from other sources and as Gross Total Income in the computation sheet, which is not in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the assessment order. 2. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO, erred in short granting interest

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2061/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

passed u/s 144 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 for Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard ... appeal in Assessment Year 2017-18 :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') and the Ld. AO (hereinafter collectively to be referred as 'Revenue') has erred in making

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 14 (3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

passed u/s 144 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 for Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard ... appeal in Assessment Year 2017-18 :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') and the Ld. AO (hereinafter collectively to be referred as 'Revenue') has erred in making

At & T Global Network Services India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

ITA 1576/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Assessment Year 2018-19 arise against the ACIT, Circle -1(1), Delhi’s assessment order dated 28.05.2022 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-1, New Delhi directions dated 05.04.2022, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO / Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’) [in pursuance to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’)], erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 21,61,52,391 holding that the international transaction pertaining to receipt

Oceaneering International Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 3(2)(2), Air India Building, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 4670/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 274Section 44B

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as per the directions dated 22.09.2023 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRP'). 2. Aggrieved assessee has filed present appeal against the impugned order on the following grounds

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy-CIT (Int. Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 749/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

tune of Rs. 131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches assessed

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Dy.CIT of Income Tax (Internationsl Taxation) -2(1) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1234/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

tune of Rs. 131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches assessed

Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. The Jt CIT (International Taxationa), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Branch to the tune of Rs.131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 458/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

Branch to the tune of Rs.131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 4652/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Branch to the tune of Rs.131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2313/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

Branch to the tune of Rs.131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1273/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent) 2

Section 143(3)

Branch to the tune of Rs.131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1839/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Adit (International Taxation)- 1(2), Room No. 119, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Vs.11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1273/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As 'Calyon Bank') 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1165/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. 114, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Vs. Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, 11Th & 12Th & 14Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Branch to the tune of Rs.131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches

ADIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs. Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1839/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Dcit (International Taxation)- Investment Bank (Formerly 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) Vs. 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Pan: Aaccc3872B Appellant) : Respondent)

Section 143(3)

tune of Rs. 131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches assessed

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1479/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am I.T. (Tp) A. No. 1479/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (Formerly Known As ‘Calyon Bank’) 11Th Floor, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaccc3872B Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), 1St Floor, Room No. 136, Scindia House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier, Mumbai-400038. Appellant) Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Branch to the tune of Rs.131,62,22,653/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee raised the objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the total income was computed at Rs.404,21,58,617/- and the income of the Branches

Uday Ramesh Nayak, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle - Int. Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Sanjay K. Lal, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 271ASection 69

vide order dated 26.12.2023 passed for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Bench – 2, Mumbai (“the DRP”) and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara (“the AO”) erred in fact and in law in considering

Kantar Gdc India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 2(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156

Circle 2(1), Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”) u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) as per the directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru (“Ld. DRP”) on 29.12.2023 & 28.06.2024 for the A.Ys. 2017-18 and 2020-21 respectively. Since common issues are involved in both these