← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4513/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

lower authorities as well as the several judicial precedents relied upon before us. We have also carefully considered the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel wherein as per direction dated 30 June 2022 in paragraph number 25.9 this issue has been dealt with. The learned dispute addition panel agreed ... preclude revenue from examining the scheme for tax compliances. We do not have any hesitation in upholding the finding of the learned dispute resolution panel that it is the duty of the learned assessing officer to examine the impact of the scheme for tax purposes. It is not the case

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4318/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194Section 194HSection 28Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 391Section 394Section 40

lower authorities as well as the several judicial precedents relied upon before us. We have also carefully considered the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel wherein as per direction dated 30 June 2022 in paragraph number 25.9 this issue has been dealt with. The learned dispute addition panel agreed ... preclude revenue from examining the scheme for tax compliances. We do not have any hesitation in upholding the finding of the learned dispute resolution panel that it is the duty of the learned assessing officer to examine the impact of the scheme for tax purposes. It is not the case

Osi Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2379/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2379/Hyd/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

09/10/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/10/2018 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”) in the case of OSI Systems Private Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2014-15, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA ... credit, calculated interest for 11 months and suggested an adjustment of Rs.3,07,94,609/-. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed objections before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and the learned DRP by way of impugned order issued certain instructions pursuant to which the assessment order dated 26/10/2018 was passed pursuant

Kreuz Subsea Technologies Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle-2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 1403/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Subsea Technologies Vs. Acit, Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Circle- International Taxation 10, Science Centre Road, -2(1)(2), Block 1, 01-12, Bestway New Delhi Centre, Singapore Pan: Aafck7070C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2024 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Dated 12.04.2022 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2019-20 In Pursuance To The Directions Of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp). 2. When The Appeal Was Called Out None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even, There Is No Application By The Assessee Seeking Ay: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 270A

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2019-20 in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. When the appeal was called out none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even, there is no application by the assessee seeking

Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, International Taxation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.489/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pallav Rajnikant Pancholi The Ito बनाम/ 903, Anurag Flats Ward-2, International Taxation V/S. Nr.Vidhyanagar School Ahmedabad Usmanpura Ahmedabad – 380 014 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ceepp 9266 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69A

money under Section 69A of the Act and made the corresponding addition of Rs.25,00,000/-. 2.5. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), submitting detailed explanations along with supporting documents, including the certificate from the employer and the remittance receipt from Economic Exchange Centre, Dubai, confirming ... transferred from his NRE Bank Account (jointly held with his wife), on the ground of remaining unexplained pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel, although the A.O. had expressed his complete satisfaction with the evidences including additional evidences filed before the DRP in his Remand Report dt.9-11-2023

M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1701/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd March 2016, the assessee stated that it was not filing any application with the Dispute Resolution Panel against the Draft Assessment Order and would prefer appeal before the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1012/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd March 2016, the assessee stated that it was not filing any application with the Dispute Resolution Panel against the Draft Assessment Order and would prefer appeal before the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1011/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd March 2016, the assessee stated that it was not filing any application with the Dispute Resolution Panel against the Draft Assessment Order and would prefer appeal before the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13,

ITA 1010/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Eureka Forbes Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 7, Chakraberia Road (South), Of Income Tax, Vs Bhovanipur, Kolkata - 700025 Circle 10(1), Kolkata, (Pan: Aaace5767F) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata - 700017 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Samir ChakrabortyFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

sent to the assessee. Vide letter dated 22nd March 2016, the assessee stated that it was not filing any application with the Dispute Resolution Panel against the Draft Assessment Order and would prefer appeal before the CIT(A). Thereafter, the Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

Shashank Rathi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer International Taxation Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2369/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Shashank Rathi Ito, International Taxation Ward C/O. Goel Anil & Co. Arihant Plaza 84, 4(1)(1) Room No. 1729, 17Th Floor, Walltax Road Park Tower, Chennai, Vs. Tamil Nadu-600 063 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri A. Suraj NaharFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 69

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the final assessment order passed in pursuance of direction of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon’ble DRP for short), relevant to Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ... that the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel and consequently the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interests of the appellant and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity

Aries Agro Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the transfer pricing addition of INR.103,26,939/- is deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 4731/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

144C(13) and Section 144B 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 25/09/2023 under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. A.Y.2020-21 2. The Appellant

Syeda Humera Hai, K V Ranga Reddy vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-I, Hyderabad

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

ITA 461/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Dayaker, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 147

without providing any benefit to the cost of acquisition. Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and contended that the Assessing Officer is not correct in passing the draft assessment order dated 27.02.2023. The assessee contended that the property

Toshiba Transmission and Distribution System (India) Private Limited, Rudraram vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-81), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 103/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं / Ita Tp No.103/Hyd/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Toshiba Transmission & Distribution Vs. Acit, Circle-8(1) Systems (India) Private Ltd. Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaect6883F] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Kranthi,Ar & Shri Kc Devdas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Kranthi,AR and Shri KC Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

Which adjustments were incorporated by the AO in draft assessment order. 5. Aggrieved with the draft order assessee filed its objection before the Dispute Resolution panel(DRP). The Ld DRP vide its order dated 30.09.2019 dismissed the objections of the assessee and directed the AO to complete the assessment

Ignatius Mathew Kalapurakkal, Kollam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

ITA 106/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None---For Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 144C(1)

Bench : This assessee’s appeal in ITA No.106/Coch/2024 for assessment year 2014-2015 arises out of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2023- 24/1058266942(1) dated 28.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter. Case

DCIT, Intl. Taxn., Circel1(2), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1326/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

I.T.Act and fees for included services under Article 12(4)(a) of India-US DTAA. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP issued directions dated 08.09.2017. The DRP rejected the objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, final assessment order was passed

DCIT, Intl Taxn, Circle-1(2), Bng, Bengaluru vs. Blue Yonder Inc., U.S.A

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1302/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedit(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., International Taxation, 15059 N, Suite 400 Scottsdale, Circle -1(2), Arizona, Foreign, Bengaluru. United States. Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Appellant Respondent C.O.No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Blue Yonder Inc., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, United States. Circle -1(2), Pan : Aaccj 3581 C Bengaluru. Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate & Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of Cit(A) Both Dated 09.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2018-19. It(It)A Nos.1302, 1326/Bang/2024 C.O. No.34/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A No.1302/Bang/2024) Page 2 Of 13

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate and Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

I.T.Act and fees for included services under Article 12(4)(a) of India-US DTAA. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP issued directions dated 08.09.2017. The DRP rejected the objections raised by the assessee. Accordingly, final assessment order was passed

Nataraj Ramaiah, Chennai vs. ITO International Tax Ation Ward 2(1), Chennai

ITA 849/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Nataraj Ramaiah, V. International Taxation No. 25, Kothari Road, Ward -2(1), Nungambakkam – 600 034. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaapr-5280-R] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee By : None ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 74

Gains Tax without accepting the explanations/ supporting :-2-: ITA. No:849/Chny/2024 documents furnished by the assessee in terms of the Order of the Dispute Resolution Panel dtd.16/11/2022, which: (i) Directed the assessee to obtain a certificate from the VAO, Aryaperumbakkam to verify the location / distance of land from the nearest ... Capital Asset' in terms of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act for the following reasons and referred the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel by passing a Draft Order u/s.144C dt. 30/03/2022: (i) Land sold by the assessee is not an agricultural land 'but a housing site

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-I, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1348/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

passed under Section 144C and 153C r.w. section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) pertaining to assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19. 2 ITAs No.1342

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1347/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

passed under Section 144C and 153C r.w. section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) pertaining to assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19. 2 ITAs No.1342

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, C.C.1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1346/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

passed under Section 144C and 153C r.w. section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) pertaining to assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19. 2 ITAs No.1342