“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

Cummins Generator Technologies India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC and the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1641/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1641/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cummins Generator V The Assessment Unit, Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., S Income Tax Department, Tower A, 6Th Floor, Cummins Nfac & The Acit, India Offie Campus, Balewadi, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcc1533E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shir Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 07.06.2024; To Give Effect To The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 18.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. Ground For Not Following The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Drp")

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.06.2024; to give effect to the order of Dispute Resolution Panel dated 18.05.2024. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1. Ground for not following the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute ... under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 29.07.2023. The assessee aggrieved by the order of Transfer Pricing Officer preferred an appeal before Dispute Resolution Panel. Dispute Resolution Panel decided the objections raised by assessee vide order dated 18.05.2024. Then the Assessing Officer passed an order under section

ITO (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mikkilineni Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, International Taxation – 1 Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Nenpk4757J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

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

Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 53A

Narendra Kumar, Serilingampally, Villa No.78, Boulder Hills, Serilingampally, Gachibowli, S.O. Pin – 500032, Telangana. 2 The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) -1, Hyderabad. 3 Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Bangaluru 4 Director of Income Tax (IT & TP), Hyderabad. 5 The Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad. 6 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches

Limagrain India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 464/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

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

Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 29.07.2022, in pursuant to directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act, dated 21.06.2022, issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (“the Ld.DRP”), Bengaluru and relevant to the A.Y.2018- 19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. The captioned order ... Assessing Officer (“Ld.AO”) for the captioned AY passed in the case of Limagrain India Private Limited (“Assessee”), pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“Hon'ble DRP), is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing adjustments : Seed testing charges paid

Venugopal Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, International Taxation -2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 613/HYD/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2021-22 Venugopal Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Jubilee Hills, International Taxation – 2, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Bsdpr2467N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mrudulatha Devdas Appeared For Shri K.C. Devdas, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Mrudulatha Devdas appeared for Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna – CIT-DR

/83/J-III, Road No.92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500033, Telangana. 2 The Assistant Director of Income Tax, International Taxation – 2, Hyderabad. 3 Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Bengaluru 4 Director of Income Tax (IT & TP), Hyderabad. 5 Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad 6 Prl.CIT (Central), Hyderabad. 7 DR, ITAT Hyderabad

M/S Ni Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3259/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ajith V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

with its AE. Accordingly, the TPO made certain adjustments. 3.1. Aggrieved with the order of TPO, the assessee filed its objections before ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) on 25.1.2018. 3.2 The ld. DRP on 7.9.2018 issued directions to the TPO, partly allowing the objections of the assessee. It is pertinent

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita Nos. 2237 & 2238/Del/2024 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Tungsten Network Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit Anil Saraf, No.8-2-350/3/C, Civic Centre, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Minto Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-34 New Delhi – 110 002 Pan : Aajct 5973 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Saraf, C.A. & Shri Anish Raj Saraf, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

Income Tax Department, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi [hereinafter referred as (‘Ld. AO’)] in pursuance to the direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi dated 22.02.2024 under section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18. -2- ITA Nos.2237 & 2238/Del/2024 Tungston

Tungsten Network Limited, United Kingdom vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre, Minto Road

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2237/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 9(1)(vii)

Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1488/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 92C

against the final order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act in pursuance to Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP)-2Delhi making a downward adjustment of Rs.37,36,51,214/- in respect of transfer value of power by the Captive Power Plant at Amlai ... Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square,Kolkata-700069 (3) DC/ACIT TP-2, Kolkata; (4) Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi; (5) The Departmental Representative; Orient Paper & Industries Limited (6) Guard FileBy order

Lm Wind Power Blades India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 2089/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavit(Tp)A No.560/Bang/2015 It(Tp)A No.189/Bang/2016 & It(Tp)A No.2089/Bang/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively Lm Wind Power Blades (India) Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.85, Kiadb Industrial Area Phase I, Thimmanayakana Halli Dabaspet Dcit Nelamangala Taluk Vs. Circle-4(1)(1) Bangalore (Rural Dist) 562 111 Bangalore Karnataka Pan No : Aaacl3093R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & Sri Kushal Goyal, A.Rs Respondent By : Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 O R D E R Per Bench: All These Three Appeals Related To Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao Dated 3.2.2015, Dated 18.12.2015 & Dated 1.9.2017 Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & SriFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 92C

sales”. It is relevant to mention here that this addition was in fact made by the ld. DRP during proceedings before the dispute resolution panel. Be that as it may, since the assessee has already offered this amount in MAP, no protective addition as made by the ld. DRP deserve

Lm Wind Power Baldes (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 189/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & SriFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 92C

Lm Wind Power Blades (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 560/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Hirali Desai & SriFor Respondent: Sri N. Senthil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 92C

L'Oreal India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 4577/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarl'Oreal India Private V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, A-Wing, 8Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Maharashtra 400 013, बनाम Income Tax- 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacl0738K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Prabhash Shankar [Α.Μ.] This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Tpo' For Short) Pursuant To The Direction Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp' For Short), Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Relevant To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2020-21.The Assessee Has Challenged The Grounds Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment On Account Of Advertisement, Marketing & Promotion (Amp) Expenses. Following Are The Grounds Raised By The Assessee: Page 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

assessee, challenging the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO' for short) pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP' for short), passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act relevant to the Assessment Year (A.Y. for short) 2020-21.The

Letiwind Shriram Manufacturing Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 493/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.493/Chny/2017 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

dated 07.11.2016. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in rejecting M/s.RRB Energy Limited as a comparable company, despite being functionally comparable to the assessee. 2. The learned TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel erred ... adjustment on account of lower margins, without appreciating the commercial/extraordinary parameters influencing the business of the Assessee. 3. The learned TPO and the Dispute Resolution Panel erred on facts and circumstances in not appreciating that the Assessee had adopted the same price for imports, for current year and previous year

Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fundq, Mumbai vs. Assisatant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Pranay Gandhi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), in pursuance of the directions under section 144C(5) of the Act issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - II, Mumbai (DRP-II) dated 22 September 2023 on the following grounds, each of which is without prejudice to and independent of the others: Ground

Western Digital Technologies Inc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 344/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)

Section 234ASection 270A

income of the assessee company for the FY 2016;17 relevant to AY 2017-18.” 7. The aggrieved assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee submitted that during the year under dispute, while it had made sales in India, SanDisk India was not involved in these ... company (the assessee) from operations attributable to India which was subject to tax in India. This view was subsequently upheld by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 12.2 Before addressing the specific issue, it is essential to refer to the relevant clauses of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 24/01/2022 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai-2 (“learned DRP"), for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “Based ... under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act, in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel I, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'learned DRP"), on the following grounds, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other

Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle2(1)(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2373/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 197Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Income Tax, (International Taxation) - 2(1)(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) based on the directions of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the following grounds

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1834/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 43ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) 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 28-04-2017. Since the assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE), the same were referred ... relation to transfer pricing adjustment The learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the learned AO, under the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP"): 2.1 Erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Transfer Pricing (TP") Study maintained by the Appellant and undertaking fresh benchmarking search

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 93/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

short “the AO") u/s.147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.01.2024 and 10.01.2024, in pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (in short “the DRP"), Bengaluru, u/s.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 07.12.2023, for the assessment years ... assessee Shri Mir Ibrahim Ali in ITA No.69/Hyd/2024 for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under : “1. The order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have appreciated that the amendment

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 92/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45