← 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

Mir Ibrahim Ali, Usa vs. ACIT, Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 91/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

Mir Ibrahim Ali, Usa vs. ACIT, Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 69/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

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

Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3337/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3337/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234FSection 270A(1)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hon'ble DRP'). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ Deputy Commissioner

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1309/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

relevant extract of the Memorandum explaining the bill of 2020 (with respect to amendment in section 144C) is reproduced as under:- Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - clause 70 of the Memorandum Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies ... Assessing Officer shall complete assessment within one month. The assessee is also given an option to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel in which event the latter can issue directions for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. In the case

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

relevant extract of the Memorandum explaining the bill of 2020 (with respect to amendment in section 144C) is reproduced as under:- Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - clause 70 of the Memorandum Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1307/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

relevant extract of the Memorandum explaining the bill of 2020 (with respect to amendment in section 144C) is reproduced as under:- Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - clause 70 of the Memorandum Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies ... Assessing Officer shall complete assessment within one month. The assessee is also given an option to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel in which event the latter can issue directions for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. In the case

Hasmukh Dipchand Gardi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

ITA 1306/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Smt. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 144CSection 153ASection 35A

relevant extract of the Memorandum explaining the bill of 2020 (with respect to amendment in section 144C) is reproduced as under:- Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) - clause 70 of the Memorandum Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies ... Assessing Officer shall complete assessment within one month. The assessee is also given an option to file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel in which event the latter can issue directions for the guidance of the Assessing Officer to enable him to complete the assessment. In the case

Lnrs Data Services Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Civic Centre

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2618/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(C)

case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO'), pursuant to the directions of the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble Panel') is based upon conjectures, surmises, preconceived notions, and incorrect application of law, is devoid of any merits and is hence ... consultancy and will thus fall within the ambit of Article12. 3.3 Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order so framed, the appellant/assessee approached the Dispute Resolution Panel which confirmed the proposed assessment as framed by the AO. Pursuant thereto, a Final Assessment Order was on 26 March 2024. In the Final

Lnrs Data Services Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Civic Centre

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2617/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(C)

case and in law, the final assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO'), pursuant to the directions of the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble Panel') is based upon conjectures, surmises, preconceived notions, and incorrect application of law, is devoid of any merits and is hence ... consultancy and will thus fall within the ambit of Article12. 3.3 Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order so framed, the appellant/assessee approached the Dispute Resolution Panel which confirmed the proposed assessment as framed by the AO. Pursuant thereto, a Final Assessment Order was on 26 March 2024. In the Final

Natwest Markets Plc, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Natwest Markets Plc Income Tax 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath Aaykar Bhavan, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Thakur Sarani, Kolkata, West 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, Bengal-700016 West Bengal 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Parcy Pardiwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 244A

Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. DRP”] dated 21.12.2022 for the AY 2020-21. 02. The only issue pressed at the time of hearing is against the order ... vide order dated 23.03.2022. 07. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel and the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel vide its order restored the issue to the file of the ld. AO directing to decide the same after taking into

Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation-2(2), Chennai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 1626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1626/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2010-11 Newgen Imaging Systems Private Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, International Taxation-2(2), No.268, Royapettah High Road, Chennai. Royapettah, Madras, Tamil Nadu-600014. [Pan: Aaacn2041B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri G. Shiva Kumar, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 201(1)Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)

United States, United Kingdom and Ireland. However, the transaction name given by the Assessee to the transaction is not material. The Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and disallowed the expenditure incurred towards the off-the-shelf software products by observing in paragraph No.2.6.3 ... Royalty" and is taxable in India u/s.9(1) Explanation (vi)(b) of the Act and the Assessing Officer on the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel had made the addition of this computer software and maintenance payment considering the same as "Royalty". 17. The learned Counsel for the Assessee

Rosy Blue (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5387/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year: 2021-22 Rosy Blue (India) Assistant Private Limited Commissioner Of 1608/09, Income Tax, Central Prasad Chambers, Circle 8(3) Vs. Tata Road No.2, 659, 6Th Floor, Opera House, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- 400004. Maharishi Karve Marg, Pan: Aaccr2413B Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 92C

r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act pertaining to A.Y.2021-22. The grounds of the assessee read as under:- 1. “The learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') and Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO')/Assessing Officer ('AO') erred in Rosy Blue (India) Private Limitedi; A. Y. 2021-22 making an upward adjustment

Aurobindo Pharma Limited (Auronext Pharma Private Limited Since Amalgamated With Aurobindo Pharma Limited), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 893/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri B. G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri P.V. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92B

aggrieved by the final assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer, Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”), dated 12.07.2024 as per the direction of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) ITA No.893/Hyd/2024 2 for the A.Y. 2020-21 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income

Astra Zeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 419/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Nos.419 & 876/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 10 appeal relating to Document Identification No. (DIN), which was not mentioned in the direction issued by the dispute resolution panel. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. 3. The issue raised in ground No. 1 is general in nature and, therefore, the same does not require

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 434/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.434/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2021-22) 3F Industries Limited V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 1 Aayakar Bhavan Pb No. 15, Tanuku Road Veerabhadrapuram Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh - 534102 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaacf2643K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

adjustment made by the Ld. TPO and against the draft assessment order dated 18.12.2023, the assessee raised its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru [“Ld. DRP”]. The Ld. DRP, after Page No. 4 I.T.A.No.434/VIZ/2024 3F Industries Limited hearing the submissions of the assessee and on perusal ... Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act) dated 23 September 2024, the Ld. AO / Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO") and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in: Ground No 1: Notional guarantee fee on shareholder's guarantee Making adjustment on the shareholders corporate guarantee provided to the banks

Ajit Kumar, Bokaro vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), It, Kolkata

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

ITA 243/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Limited and Fireweb India Limited during the relevant previous year. The assessee filed petition u/s 144C r.w.s. 147/148 of the Act before the Dispute Resolution Panel, New Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 243/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajit Kumar. Delhi. The Hon'ble DRP passed direction u/s 144C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Rajan Sehgal, Delhi

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

ITA 2173/DEL/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Aggarwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 147Section 69

required to file its acceptance of the variation to the returned income or file his objection, if any, to such variation before the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer within 30 days of receipt of draft assessment order. In response to draft assessment order, the assessee filed letter dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Rajan Sehgal, Delhi

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

ITA 2172/DEL/2024[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ambika Aggarwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 147Section 69

required to file its acceptance of the variation to the returned income or file his objection, if any, to such variation before the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer within 30 days of receipt of draft assessment order. In response to draft assessment order, the assessee filed letter dated

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 498/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

account of cash deposits made during demonetisation period. These additions have been challenged through the following grounds of appeal.: “1. FOR THAT the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "the DRP") erred in confirming the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant to EIH Flight Services Ltd. Mauritius

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

account of cash deposits made during demonetisation period. These additions have been challenged through the following grounds of appeal.: “1. FOR THAT the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as "the DRP") erred in confirming the transaction of corporate guarantee extended by the Appellant to EIH Flight Services Ltd. Mauritius