← 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

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

144C(13) r.w.s. 144Bof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2020- 21pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act raising following grounds of appeal :- 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment

Seadrill International Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4700/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 270ASection 44B

being a sum of Rs. 3,44,35,060/- to the profit declared by the assessee under section 44BB of the Act. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed

Anurag Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 71(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3500/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesheli Lilly & Company (India) Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Plot No 92, Circle-1(1), Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon, Haryana Jharsa, Gurgaon, Haryana, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaace8901F

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT (DR)
Section 144C(5)Section 92C

appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) inconsonance with the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 08.05.2024 and order passed by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(3) dated 30.05.2024 under section 144C(5) of the Income

Qubix Business Park Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1994/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act to give effect to the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP-3 Mumbai)under section 144C(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 30.07.2024 for A.Y.2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds ... liable to be quashed. 2. Interest on borrowings from Embassy Office Parks REIT amounting to INR 7,80,17,976 2.1 The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble. DRP’) has erred in upholding the order passed by Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld.TPO’) wherein the Ld.TPO has rejected the benchmarking conducted

Hakam Fluid Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

144C(13) of the Act is wrong and bad in law and should be quashed and the order passed by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1. Delhi (‘DRP’) and the directions given therein are erroneous. Bechtel Limited vs. ACIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... proceeded to pass the final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 34. In Vijay Television (P) Ltd v. Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad) where again the AO passed the final assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act instead of passing

Parvinder Kaur Sawhney, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi -12, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 626/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Ghanshyam Pragjibhai Nakrani, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Intl.Taxn., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1500/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 271ASection 69A

before passing the draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act. Asst.Year –2022-23 - 2– 2. The Dispute Resolution Panel has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the application before it on the ground that the application before it was barred by limitation

Valukko Infrastrusture Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1034/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1034/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Danish Sheikh V/S. Ito International Tax, 18, Old Planters Road, बिाम Ward 4(2)(1) Beverly, Usa-999999 Kautilya Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Fjxps3005Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 43CSection 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(vil)

vide a draft assessment order, against which the assessee filed objections before the P a g e | 7 A.Y. 2016-17 Danish Sheikh Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). After considering the response of the assessee, Ld. DRP issued directions to the Ld. AO, in accordance to which the assessment was completed

DCIT Corporate Circle 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee & Revenue for AYs 2011-

ITA 3024/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishit (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.3024/Chny/2019 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner- Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai. V. M/S.Vestas Wind Technology- India Pvt. Ltd., No.298, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aaaca 9274 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Shri N.V.Balaji, Adv. : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 08.10.2024 : 31.12.2024 It (Tp) A No.3/Chny/2018 For Ay 2011-12 &

Section 144CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Income-tax, Circle 3(2), Chennai ('AO') u/s 144C/143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2017, pursuant to the directions issued by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') vide order dated 27.12.2017 for AY 2011-12. In AY 2012-13, the Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order ... being taken up together. "The grounds mentioned herein are without prejudice to one another. Ground 1 TheLearned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') and Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') exceeded the direction of the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Hon'ble ITAT') following specific directions issued

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 32Section 43(1)

assessee as defined as u/s.144C(15). Relevant extract of section 144C(15) is as under: "(15) For the purposes of this section, - (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Principal Commissioners or Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee" means

Uber India Systems Private Limited (As Successor to Uber India Research and Development Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D MistriFor Respondent: : Ms. M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 144B(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

case and in law, the learned National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC') / Assessing Officer ('AO') / Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') erred, and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') further erred in making an addition of INR 28,50,75,589 to the Appellant's total income based on the provisions ... u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act on 24.09.2021. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred objection ITA No.581/Hyd/2022 7 before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”). The Ld. DRP issued directions u/s.144C(5) of the Act on 13.06.2022 upholding the transfer pricing adjustment proposed

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. DCIT Circle -1, Nellore

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

ITA 502/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate and Shri Nitin Narang,C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 92D

Income Tax, Circle 1, Nellore (hereinafter referred to as "AO") pursuant to the IT(TP)A No.630/Hyd/2024 2 directions passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "DRP") under Section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), is a vitiated order having been passed ... respect of international transactions. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed draft assessment order on 25.09.2021. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred objections before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) and pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP dated 14.06.2022, the Ld. AO finalized the assessment on 28.07.2022 making addition of Rs.56

Eapen George, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward International Taxation 1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2126/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 69

return of income, either u/s. 139 or u/s 148 of the Act. The assessment order was passed pursuant to the direction of The Dispute Resolution Panel–1, Bengaluru (the ld. DRP) dated 9/9/2024 on the draft assessment order passed u/s. 144C (1) of the Act dated 24/1/2024. 2. Therefore, assessee ... No.2126/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 11 5. Assessee, aggrieved with the draft assessment order, filed an objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel and intimated the learned assessing officer on 22 January 2024 of filing such objection. 6. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel passed its directions on 9/9/2024. Before the learned

Chiara Nath, Delhi vs. DCIT - Circle Int .Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1924/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrachiara Nath Vs. Dcit 7, Maulseri House, Circle – Int. Tax 2(2)(2), Kapashera Estate New Delhi Delhi – 110 037 Pan : Aafpn 8540 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. R. Sahu, C.A. & Shri Akhil Mangla, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(2) [hereinafter referred as (‘Ld. AO’)] in pursuance to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi dated 19.02.2024 under section 144C of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. -2- ITA No.1924/Del/2024 Chiara Nath vs. DCIT

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3753/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraharley – Davidson Motor Vs. Acit, International Tax Company Inc. Circle –2(1)(1), C/O. H-D Motor Company New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd. Building No.5, Tower A, Level-18, Dlf Cyber City Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Aacch 6849 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Shri Jaskaran Sarkaria, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(5)

pursuance to the direction of -2- ITA No.3753/Del/2023 Harley-Davidson Motor Company Inc. vs. ACIT A.Y. 2021-22 learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi dated 19.09.2023 under section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee/appellant ... section 144C of the Act was forwarded to the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee filed his objections in Form 35A before Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Delhi (‘DRP-1’) on 25.01.2023 under section 144C(2)(b) of the Act. Hon’ble DRP vide order dated 19.09.2023 issued directions under

Sumo Logic, Inc., Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3350/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman(Assessment Year : 2021-22 Sumo Logic, Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, 305 Main Street, Delhi. Redwood City, California, Foreign, United States. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Tower-B, 7Th Floor, Building 10, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon-122002. (Pan: Abecs 9368 P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. & Shri Aditya Rathore, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Order : 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. The Captioned Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2021-22. Pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is a company registered in United States of America ... other provisions of Income tax and India-US DTAA. 8. Aggrieved, with the above order assessee preferred objections before learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (“DRP” in short), New Delhi. The learned DRP has dismissed the grounds of objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, final assessment order was passed dated

Decathlon Sports India Private Limited, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Bengaluru, Karnataka

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 1874/BANG/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 92C

order passed u/s. 92CA (3) by the DCIT (TP), 1(2)(1), [ The ld. TPO] dated 27.7.2023, consequent to directions of the Id. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru [ld. DRP] dated 20.6.2024 and consequent order giving effect passed by the ld. AO/TPO. Assessee is aggrieved and has raised the following grounds ... provide the details to the ld. AO to check the nature and genuineness of these expenses. Accordingly, disallowance was upheld. The learned dispute resolution panel issued the direction to the learned assessing officer on 20/6/2024 under section 144C (5) of the income tax act. The necessary OGE was passed

Biocon Biologics Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1590/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavit(Tp)A No.1590/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

arguments of the assessee in paragraph number 5 of the order. He further referred to ground number 2 of objections before the learned dispute resolution panel. 14. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. We have also considered factual paper book ... transaction. However, there is no reference as to how these transactions are closely linked. Therefore, the learned transfer pricing officer and the learned dispute resolution panel has rejected the argument of the assessee holding that the onus is on the assessee to show that these are interlinked and closely connected

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Kumutha D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234B(3)Section 250

further enquiry and pass the Assessment Order the provisions of Section 144C(8) is reproduced herein below for kind immediate reference. “….(8)The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set asideany proposed variation or issue

Anju Basundhra, Foreign vs. Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2490/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraanju Basundhra Vs. Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2) C/O. Deepal Sehgal & Co., Minto Road, Chartered Accountants New Delhi – 110 002 Trikuta Nagar, Jammu & Kashmir – 180 020 Pan : Aulpb 3709 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, A.R. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 1(1)(2) [hereinafter referred as (‘Ld. AO’)] in pursuance to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi under section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14. -2- ITA No.2490/Del/2024 Anju Basundhra vs. Circle