“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

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

Sanchore Renewable Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) as per the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) on 11.09.2024 for the A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “ 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... No.1189/Hyd/2024 2 section 1445 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pursuant to the directions dated 26 August 2024 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (DRP) u/s 1440(5) of the Act and read with order dated 3 September 2024 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 11.1, Kolkata

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, AR

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

read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed against the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C(5) of the Act ITA No.78, 2681/Kol/2018 & ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

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

read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed against the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s. 144C(5) of the Act ITA Nos.2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

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

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

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

Roechling Industrial India Private Limited, Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Lncome Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6722/MUM/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 234A

144C(13) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Mumbai ('DRP'), on the following grounds: On the facts, and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned AO has, based

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5919/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92CSection 92D

software product development company. 018. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the learned transfer pricing officer and learned dispute resolution panel 019. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Assessee argued before the learned transfer-pricing officer that this ... pricing officer rejected the same for the reason that companies engaged in providing software development and outsourced solution is comparable functionally. Before the dispute resolution panel the assessee challenged the above comparable that the segment, which is compared with the margins of the assessee, is in the nature

Daeha Plastic Compound India Private Limited, Ananthapur vs. DCIT., Circle 1, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 879/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

order dated 12/07/2024 passed by the learned Assessing Officer (assessment unit, Income Tax Department) pursuant to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, Bengaluru (learned DRP), in the case of Daeha Plastic Compound India Pvt. Ltd (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2020-21, assessee preferred this

M/S. Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1960/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT DR

Section 92Section 92C

Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the objection of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. DRP”] dated 04.10.2023 for the AY 2020-21. 02. Ground no. 1 is general in nature and therefore, need no specific adjudication ... draft assessment added the same after brushing aside the reply of the assessee. 05. In the ld. DRP proceedings, the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel also confirmed the order of the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer on this issue and accordingly, the ld. AO passed the final assessment order dated 29.07.2024, after

Sunkara Kotipalli Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 299/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sunkara Kotipalli Naidu V. Income Tax Officer –Ward- Chettupalli Village (International Taxation) Narsipatnam Mandal Income Tax Office Visakhapatnam Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh – 531116 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Dzdps4163R] Andhra Pradesh,530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

detailed in the draft assessment order. 3. Aggrieved by the additions made in the draft assessment order, assessee filed its objections before Dispute Resolution Panel [in short “Ld. DRP”] on 10.04.2024. Ld. DRP while issuing direction under section 144(5) of the Act, observed that assessee has filed the objection ... jurisdictional Tribunal. Assessee therefore filed an appeal before us by raising the 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 hon'ble Dispute Resolution

Netafim Irrigation India Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The ACIT/DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1628/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2020-21 Netafim Irrigation India P.Ltd. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Plot No.268-270, 271-B Vs Ahmedabad. Gidc, Manjusar, Savli Vadodara Pan : Aaace 4738 J (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 after complying with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(“DRP” for short) on the objections raised by the assessee. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1.1. On the facts

Flakt Wood (Luxem Bourg) S.A.R.L., Foreign, Luxembourg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 255/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Chny/2023 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Flakt Woods (Luxembourg) S.A.R.L The Dy. Commissioner Of 1A Rue Thomas Edison, Vs. Income Tax, Strassen 999999, Foreign, International Taxation, Luxembourg. Circle-1(1) [Pan: Aaecf 6694G] Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sudarmani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C

final assessment order dated 28.12.2022 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangaluru (DRP) dated 15.12.2022 u/s 144C r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). :- 2 -: 2. The Ld. Authorized Representative

Ms Bina Suresh Gidwani, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the alternative submission raised

ITA 903/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10

assessment order passed. Accordingly, based on the above submissions we first consider following revised grounds filed by the assessee: “1. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel and the Learned Assessing Officer erred in re-opening the assessment and determining the total 5 ITA No.903/Mum/2023; A.Y. 2014-15 Ms. Bina Suresh Gidwani ... without appreciating the fact that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment during the year under consideration. 2. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel and Learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 21,44,067/-under the head 'Income from Other Sources' without appreciating the fact that

Rajendra Maganbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

ITA 106/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar S.V. Road, Malad West Mumbai - 400 064 Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N बनाम / V/S. The Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Revenue By : Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Section 147 R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee'S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

under Section 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred to as “DRP”]. The core issue in both the appeals concerns the addition made by the AO on account of credits

Rajendra Maganbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

ITA 105/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar Income Tax, Circle V/S. S.V. Road, Malad West International Taxation, Mumbai – 400 064 Vadodara Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26 /02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee’S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred to as “DRP”]. The core issue in both the appeals concerns the addition made by the AO on account of credits

Rehau Polymers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

ITA 658/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra B Ninawe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transactions related to said Services treated NIL and adjustment of Rs. 6,71,58,603/- is made.” 7. The assessee approached the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) but without any success. 8. The Assessing Officer in the final order made the addition of the same to the total income

DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kuber Sucurities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 1412/DEL/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 250

proposed at INR 2,05,06,16,300/-. 3. Against the said order, the assessee has not filed any objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) and thus, the AO has passed final assessment order on 23.02.2018 wherein adjustment of INR 51,44,93,354/- towards provision of IT enable

Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar, Punjab vs. DCIT, ACIT Circle 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

Pricing Officer (in short ‘TPO’) dated 5.12.2021 for A.Y. 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the order/directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi [herein referred to as ‘DRP’ ] dated 24.06.2024 for A.Y. 2020-21 are as under:- “Profile of the Assessee: Satia Industries Limited ... Assessing Officer (AO) concerning the variation in the arm's length price of power, where the AO, following the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), reduced the sales value of power to Rs. 23,72,90,275 from the assessee's reported value

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Greaves Cotton Limited, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are

ITA 6041/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 14ASection 35

Rs.5,01,278/-. He observed that while considering identical issue in assessee’s case in A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2013-14, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has upheld the disallowance. Accordingly, the A.O. disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. While deciding the issue in appeal, learned first appellate authority