“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

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

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

ITA 6040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

Greaves Cotton Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5566/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

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

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

Section 14ASection 35

Greaves Cotton Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5565/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

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

Section 14ASection 35

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

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2791/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)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 3,98,31,781/- instead of nil returned income is contrary

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

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2357/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

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

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

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 2355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

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

Susheel Kumar Govindram Saraff, Mumbai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 68

therefore, bad in law and illegal. 2. In the facts and circumstance of the Appellant's case the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act 1961 are bad in law. 3. Without prejudice to Ground 1 & 2 above, order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aadl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 801/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C

addition of INR 25,29,89,726 on account of transfer pricing issues, erred in law in disregarding the impact of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel's ('Ld. DRP') directions passed under section 144C and not complying with the terms of Section 144C (10) and 144C

Ups Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy C/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4888/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 37Section 92C(1)

case and in law, the learned Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (AU) Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred, and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP') further erred in upholding the approach of the learned TPO in making an addition of INR 202,061,842 to the Appellant's total income ... other method and computed the arm’s- length price of this international transaction at nil. Further, when the issue reached before the learned dispute resolution panel, the learned dispute resolution panel abdicated its duty to benchmark the international transaction and merely followed its own direction in earlier years

Siemens Mobility Gmbh, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax), 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Esm Group Inc, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

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

ITA 9365/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Esm Group Inc. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T Suite 118 N, 300, Corporate Park Circle -1(2)(2) Way Amherst, New York International Taxation New Delhi Pan: Aacce 4072 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, Ca Department By :Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, CAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

ITA No.9365/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Unilever Undustries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7438/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

have been shared by the AE (Unilever Plc.) with the assessee with respect to the R&D services rendered by the assessee. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) did not entirely agree with the adjustment made by the TPO to R&D Services segment. The ld.DRP held that

Unilever Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1280/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Unilever Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1123/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Kushal Mittal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

material furnished on record. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, both the Ld. AO and Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel – 2 (‘Hon’ble DRP’) erred in holding that the Appellant did not file reply to show cause notice issued by the Ld.AO without appreciating ... Income from Other Sources’ and made addition of the entire receipts i.e. Rs.62,56,46,817/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) highlighting that the draft Assessment Order was passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Nevertheless, on merits as well the assessee made

Rhodianyl.Sas, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4002/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrirhodianyl Sas V/S. Dcit, International Tax 25, Rue De Clinchy, Paris, बनाम Circle -4(1)(1), Mumbai France Air India Building, Outside India. Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicr6367G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 112Section 112(1)(c)Section 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO based on the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), erred in making adjustment of INR 5,26,54,886 to the total income of the Appellant

Anand Singh, Village Shahpur Turk vs. Income Tax Officer 69(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1022/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarbombardier Inc, Vs. Acit, 400, Dorval, Cote-Vertu, Circle-1(1)(2), Road West, Quebee Delhi Canada-H4S1Y9 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccb7177J Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Cas Shri Varun Jain, Ca Shri Mohit Agarwal, Ca Ms. Amulya K. Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAsFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 9(1)(vii)

under section 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „the Act‟) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-1, New Delhi dated 24.12.2024 u/s 144C(5). 2. The Ground No. 1.1 raised by the Assessee is general in nature and does

Gateway Office Parks Priovate Limitedi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Cicle-6(1), Chennai

ITA 617/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.617/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2015-16 Gateway Office Parks Private Limited, Block No.A6, Ground Floor, No.16, Gst Road, Perungalathur, Chennai-600 063. [Pan: Aajcs8198P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri S.Ananthan, Advocate (Virtual). Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit 22.01.2025 19.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1050825008(1) Dated 16.03.2023 For The Assessment Years 2015-16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By Cit(A), Chennai. 2.0 Ground Of Appeal No.1 Has Been Found To Be General In Nature & Hence Not Worthy Of Any Meritorious Adjudication.

Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 16(1), Mumbai vs. Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6815/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

impugned order, as addressed to the Assessing Officer opting not to file any objections in the name of SPENI before the Dispute Resolution Panel and also requesting to pass the final assessment order in the name of SPNI, as SPENI is no more in existence. However, despite such intimation

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax 16(1), Mumbai vs. Culver Max Entertainmet Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6814/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 391Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)