“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

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 320/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2. 2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO's order before Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act determining the income as Rs.22

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 319/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(3) r.w.s. I.T.A Nos. 317 to 324/Ahd/2024 A.Ys

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd, Gujarat

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 318/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

Kh Facility Solutions India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 492/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

assessee has raised the following grounds : Repr. 1. The order of the Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("the Hon'ble DRP"), is bad in law and liable to be set aside. ITA No.492/Hyd/2022 2 2. The Ld.AO/Hon'ble DRP erred ... international transactions. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed draft assessment order ITA No.492/Hyd/2022 4 on 28.09.2021. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred objections before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) and pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP dated 27.06.2022, the Ld. AO finalized the assessment on 29.07.2022 determining

New Era Industrial Services Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3272/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

Lanxess India Private Limited, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wagle Industrial Estate

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Prabhash Shankar ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in pursuance of the directions issued by Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'), Mumbai, dated 21 June 2024 under section 144C(5) r.w.s 254/260A of the Act on the following grounds, which are independent of and without

Buro Happpold Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4350/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta/ Nishit ParikhFor Respondent: Shri S. G. Menon, Sr. DR

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

case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in learned DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in learned DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in considering ... case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP ('Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in learned DRP ('Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in learned DRP ('Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in considering

Somnath Bondopadhaya, Kolkata vs. The ITO, Ward-2, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 458/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 116BSection 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 234Section 285BSection 69A

total income at Rs. 2,32,00,913/-. The assessee filed objections against the draft assessment on 13-04-2023 before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The Dispute Resolution Panel called for the remand report which was placed on record by the ITO/Assessing Officer

Mahle Behr India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

ITA 795/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri R D Onkar

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)

Rs.9,52,85,477/- and thereby determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.19,11,01,437/-. 5. The assessee approached the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) who vide order dated 20.12.2016 gave certain directions to the Assessing Officer. It is seen from the assessment order that the assessee

Sundaram Fastners Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2501/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2501/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ It(Tp)A No.92/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Sundram Fasteners Limited Ito बनाम/ 98-A, 7Th Floor, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Corporate Ward-6(1) Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaacs-8779-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 80GSection 92C

Assessing Officer, (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated 24.06.2024. Since the assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE), the same were referred

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3620/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम Btl Industries Ltd., Dcit, (Merged With & Now Known As Vs. Central Circle-Ii, M/S Btl Holding Co. Ltd.), Faridabad, C/O Srs Mall, Third Floor, Haryana. Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No.Aaccb0573C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent &

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

made. Accordingly, a draft assessment order was framed by the AO on 31.03.2014. 8. Qua this, respondent/assessee preferred its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP dismissed the objections on 21.10.2014. It is pursuant to the dismissal of the respondent/assessee’s objection, that the AO framed the assessment

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3619/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed in the

ITA 4630/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S, A.M.

Section 9(1)(vii)

short 'the Act') pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2019-20 and 2021-22 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). ITA No. 2417/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2019-20) 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee did not press Ground Nos.1 and 4. Accordingly, these grounds

Murex Southeast Asia Pvt Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (Int Taxation) 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2417/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S, A.M. A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2021-22 Murex Southeast Asia Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of # 19-01, 10 Marina Boulevard, Income Tax Marina Bay Financial Centre, International Tax Vs. Tower 2, Singapore 018983 3(2)(2), Mumbai, Case Of Address 16Th Floor, Air India 503, Avior, Nrimal Galaxy, Building, Nariman Point, Opp Johnson & Johnson, Lbs Mumbai 400021 Marg Mulund West, Mumbai 400080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aaicm 4006F Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain/Ms. Mitali Pakle & Ms. Shreya Sejpal Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2025

Section 9(1)(vii)

short ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2019-20 and 2021-22 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee did not press Ground Nos.1 and 4. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. In Ground

Lion Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Ludhiyana

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1711/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

year i.e. AY 2010-11 and in the subsequent assessment years starting from AY 2018-19 to 2020-21, the AO and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have held that the assessee was having PE. There has been no change in the facts and the contracts in the impugned assessment

Anil Dhansukhlal, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxation) Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/RJT/2024[A Y 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jan 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.68/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2018-19) Anil Dhansukhlal Income Tax Officer बनाम Vakhat Niwas 10, Divan Para (Int.Txn), Gandhidham, Vs. Rajkot -360 001 Amruta Estate Building, Jheelwas, Sadar, Rajkot- 360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ajypd6405F "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR

Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing officer under section 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act, by following order of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel[in short ‘DRP’], under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dated 28.12.2023. 2.The grounds of appeal

International Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. ACIT (It), Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7117/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

inferred that the agent is not of an independent status. No such finding was given by the Assessing Officer, or even by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Even in the proceedings before us, no material has been brought on record which at least prima facie demonstrates, or even indicates, that ... these conclusions are arrived at in the light of the factual position that there are no findings by the Assessing Officer, or the Dispute Resolution Panel, to the effect that the transactions between the agent and the assessee are not at an arm‟s length price, and that, in view

International Air Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (International Taxation) Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7072/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

Internatinal Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7416/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A