“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

Hyundai Rotem Company-Indian Project Offices, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Taxation, Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhyundai Rotem Acit Company Indian Project International Taxation, Offices Vs. Circle2(1)(1), Room No. Unit No. 705, 706, 707 310, E-2 Block & 708 (07Th Floor), Dlf Pratyakash Kar Tower-A, Jasola District Bhawan, Civic Centre, Centre Near Apollo Jl Nehru Marg, New Hospital, Mathura Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabck6367L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

referred as ‘Act’) by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred as Ld. A.O.’) pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter Page1 referred as “Hon’ble DRP”) dated 24/05/2022 and the order 2 Hyundai Rotem Company Indian Projects Offices dated 25/07/2021 passed

Jagdish Choudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1556/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

Officer dated 21.06.2022 passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel dated 11.05.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- On facts and circumstances as well

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited(Erstwhile Excellence Data Research Private Limited), Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Hyd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S. Cognizant Technology- The Acit, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-17(1), 9Th Floor, (As Successor In Interest Of Erstwhile Excellence Data Signature Towers, Opp: Botanical Garden, Research Pvt. Ltd.), 6Th Floor, New No.165, Old No.110, Kondapur, Hyderabad. Menon Eternity Building, St. Mary’S Road,Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan: Aabce 4933 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S.P.Chidambaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT

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

u/s.143(3) r.w.s.92CA(3) r.w.s.144C (13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’) pursuant to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter in short ‘DRP’) order dated 24.08.2017. ITA No.13/Hyd. /2018 (AY 2013-14) M/s. Cognizant Technology – Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: 2. Grounds ... Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') read with section 92CA(3) and 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 24 August 2017 is bad in law and void ab-initio

Rajeev Vasudeva, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 3(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 54F

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2020-21 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The additional ground raised by the assessee vide letter dated 13.11.2023, stating that the directions issued by learned DRP under section 144C

Sgb Brandsafway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 84/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A. K.C. Devdas, C.A. P. Kranthi & C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) as per the direction of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore (“Ld. DRP”) on 25.01.2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a company filed

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)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 29/09/2023, the assessee raised its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru [“Ld. DRP”]. The Ld. DRP, after hearing the submissions of the assessee and on perusal of the objections raised against the TP adjustment made

Asra Ahmed, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 157/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), in pursuant to directions under section 144C(5) of the Act, dated 26/12/2023 issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru for the assessment year 2017-18. Since, the facts are identical, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are heard together and disposed

Syed Ahmed Zeeshanuddin, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR

Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56

Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4023/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Shri. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 56(2)(x)Section 928(2)

No.4023 /Mum/2024 Indorama Ventures Oxides Ankleshwar Pvt Ltd of order 28/06/2024. The said order was originated by the recommendation of theLearned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.DRP’) passed under section 144C (5) of the Act, date of order30.05.2024. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds ... Final Assessment Order" passed by the learned assessment unit, Income tax department ("Ld. AD") in pursuance to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (Ld. DRP") under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 1448 of the Income

Bently Nevada Llc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1858/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1974/िद"ी/2020 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं.1569 िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit JollyFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 285

1570/Del/2022, 185/Del/2023 & 1974/Del/2020(AYs 2017-18 to 2020-21) attributed profits to assessee’s PE in India. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in principle following its earlier directions for AY 2001-02 rejected assessee’s objection and upheld the assessment order; however, the DRP modified attribution of profits restricting

Bently Nevada Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1570/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1974/िद"ी/2020 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं.1569 िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit JollyFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 285

Bently Nevada Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(2) Int Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1569/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1974/िद"ी/2020 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं.1569 िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit JollyFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 285

Bently Nevada Llc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 1974/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1974/िद"ी/2020 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं.1569 िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit JollyFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 144C(13)Section 285

Parexel International Services India Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), (Neac), Chandigarh

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

ITA 129/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)

circumstances of the case and in law, the final assessment order passed by National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. Panel’) under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(13), 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act to the extent prejudicial ... before us. 3 5. Vide order dt. 31/03/2021, assessment was finalised by the National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi, pursuant to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved therewith, the assessee

Ashok Kumar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Int. Tax, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 343/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69

appeal are as under:- I.T.A No. 343/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 2 Ashok Kumar vs. ITO “1. On merits: 1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the AO erred in making the addition of Rs.88,31,765/- under section 69 of the Act by treating the investment made ... Page No. 4 Ashok Kumar vs. ITO 2023. In response to the draft order proposing, the assessee filed objection before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the DRP passed its order u/s. 144(5) on 29-12-2023. After taking cognizance of the DRP’s observation, the Assessing

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

pursuance of the directions issued referred to as the 'Learned AO'), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3, Mumbai (Hon'ble DRP), on 3, Mumbai (Hon'ble DRP), on the following grounds, each of which ... directions On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 27 June issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 27 June issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 27 June

Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As 'Dboi Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 2522/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT-DR)

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), pursuant to the directions dated 27/06/2022 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai-3 (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2017-18. Deutsche India Pvt Ltd 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP'), erred in not taking cognizance of the modified return of income of AY 2017-18 filed by the Appellant with the Ld. AO vide email dated

Orient Overseas Container Line Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 is allowed

ITA 3278/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Us The Effective Ground Which Has Been Raised Is Ground No.3, Wherein Assessee Has Challenged That Gst Amount Cannot Be Considered For The Purpose Of Computing Presumptive Income U/S.44B Of The Act. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The

Section 143(3)Section 44B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Saket Kanoi, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3243/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sunny Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

assessee: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and consequently the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have grossly erred by denying the appellant, the benefit of Article 13(5) and any other benefits under the India-UAE DTAA on capital gains ... Saket Kanoi 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and consequently the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have grossly erred by concluding that since appellant is not “liable to any taxes” in the UAE and since there are no existing Income

Gs Strategic Investments Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Tax Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4401/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153(1)Section 74

r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per the direction issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (1), Mumbai [for short ‘DRP’] on 26/09/2023 under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Appellant ... years. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee had also moved with the DRP a rectification application u/rule 13 of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 r.w sec. 144C(5) of the Act, dated 11-1-2017, seeking a direction for carry forward of the 8 Assessment Year