“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

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax, Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153Section 271(1)(c)

limitation provided u/s 153 r.w.s. 144C of the Act; hence, the same deserves to be quashed. 1.2 The AO and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred as DRP) erred in reopening the assessment of the Appellant by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income

India Opportunities Fund I F.C.R De Regimen Comun, Spain vs. DCIT (International Taxation) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4536/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Singhal/ Mohit

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 90

alienation of shares of the company whose property consists principally immovable property, is taxable in India. The assessee raised its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment order passed by the AO in this regard. Before the DRP, the assessee submitted the valuation report from Jones

Manish Jagdish Joshi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Drp)-3, Mumbai

ITA 1617/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(vii)Section 57(2)(vii)

section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 20/02/2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1.Reopening of assessment

Ganesan Kannan, Thoothukudi vs. Iti, International Taxation Ward, Thoothukudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru, for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 27.12.2023. 2. The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal: “1. The re-assessment passed by ITO, International Taxation Ward ... Tuticorin / Dispute Resolution Panel dated 19.01.2024 in DIN &Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1059947475(1) in determining taxable total income at Rs.1,06,69,982/- is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case. :-2-: ITA. No:698/Chny/2024 2. The ITO, International Taxation Ward, Tuticorin / Dispute Resolution Panel - 2 erred

Kunhi Koyathengal Sakim Thangal Mullakoya, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Tax, Kochi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 202/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 69A

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for the assessment year 2014- 2015, arise against the order of the Disputes Resolution Panel-2 [“DRP’’], Bengaluru, Bengaluru’s directions u/sec.144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the "Act"). Heard both the parties. Case file perused ... have gone by the peak amount or any telescoping of the corresponding withdrawals either in the course of assessment or in learned Dispute Resolution Panel’s [DRP] directions. 3. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to direct the assessee to file his cash flow statement as well

Seema Ramesh Gianchandani C/O. Deepak Moorjani, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.896/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shri Seema Ramesh Gianchandani, The Ito, C/O. Deepak Moorjani, International Taxation Ward- No.9, Agastya Nagar, 1(1), Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Bozpg 1404 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 148Section 50C(1)Section 55A

short ‘the AO’), Chennai, passed on 02.01.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2015-16 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (hereinafter in short ‘DRP’). 2. At the outset, we note that there is delay of thirty-one (31) days in filing this

Sri Vashista Foundation, Karaikal vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1257/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1257/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; †or (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

Netherlands Operating Company B.V., Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Taxation 2(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 147Section 148

passed the draft assessment order u/s.144C(1) of the Act on 29.12.2017; and since, assessee didn’t file any objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter in short ‘DRP’), the AO completed the assessment u/s.144C(3)(b) of the Act on 28.02.2018 by computing the total income at Rs.32

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., U. S vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2344/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

returned income of 1NR 17,93,540, making an addition of INK 16,12,78,571, pursuant to the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO /' DRP have erred in holding the consideration

Arti Sareen, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2087/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Aditi Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 154(2)Section 23

under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP) under section 144C(5) of the Act, assessing the total taxable income of the appellant (being a non- resident

Syniverse Technologies Services (India) Private Ltd., Haryana vs. ACIT Tp-1(3)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)

appeal set) 17.04.2021 Draft assessment order passed by the NFAC (Pg. 199 of the appeal set) 04.10.2021 DRP Directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel(Pg. 88 of the appeal set) 11.10.2021 Intimation letter(Pg. 87 of the appeal set) 29.11.2021 TPO passes the consequential appeal effect order ... Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 13 March 2023. The ITAT has essentially upheld the view taken by the Authority below i.e., Dispute Resolution Panel [“DRP”] which found that the assessment made in terms of Section 144C of 3 Syniverse Technologies Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. the Income

Fis Global Business Solutions India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1502/DEL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu S. Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

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

declared by the Appellant. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’)/Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of INR 62,100,644/- in relation to provision of software development services (‘SDS segment

Kimberly - Clark Lever Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

Accordingly, the Ground No.9 raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Kimberly-Clark Lever V The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, S Of Income-Tax, Circle- Ge Plaza, Yerawada, 11(1), Pmt Building, Pune-411006. Swargate, Pune. Pan: Aaack4647E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hiten Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ravi Prakash – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case The Itat Pune ‘C’ Bench In Ita 576/Pun/2014 For A.Y.2009-10 Had Passed An Order On 01/11/2021. The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Petition Ma No.197/Pun/2022 In Which It Was Claimed That Tribunal Failed To Adjudicate Ground Number 9 Raised By The Assessee. The Itat Passed An Order On 05/06/2023 In M.A. No.197/Pun/2022. Itat Held In M.A.No.197/Pun/2022 That Ground Number 9 Raised By The Assessee Had Not Been Kimberly-Clark Lever Private Ltd., [A]

which according to the AO was mere a Provision. The Assessee 2 Kimberly-Clark Lever Private Ltd., [A] filed an appeal before the Dispute Resolution panel. The DRP gave following directions : “2.7.5 We find that the assessee has received invoices in the subsequent year. Therefore, it had to create provision ... support expenses. Out of the said amount the AO proposed disallowance of Rs.48,08,167/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The DRP directed assessee to prove that the provision of Rs.48,08,167/- was made on some scientific basis. However, assessee had not filed

Backbase Europe Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3399/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh3399/Del/2023 [Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

Officer dated 29.09.2023 passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of directions of Dispute Resolution Panel dated 22.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. The order ... Delhi dated 29.09.2023 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2023- 24/1056642431(1) read in conjunction with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 22.08.2023 for the above the circumstances of the case. 2. The ACIT / DRP erred in bringing to tax Rs. 5,55,358 / - being the amount received

M/S.Vallabhadas Kanji Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The ACIT, Alappuzha

ITA 505/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhit(Tp)A No.500/Coch/2015 : Asst.Year 2008-2009 It(Tp)A No.12/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.505/Coch/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Vallabhdas Kanji Limited The Assistant Commissioner Pb No.4621, Waghjees Road Of Income-Tax, Circle – 1 V. Allappey. Allappey – 688 012. Pan : Aaacv6561E. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.R.Krishnan, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : These Assessee’S Three Appeals It(Tp)A Nos.500/Coch/2015, 12/Coch/2016 & 505/Coch/2016, For The Assessment Years 2008-2009, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 Arise Against Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction Dated 09.09.2015, 23.12.2015 & 03.10.2016, Respectively, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.92Ca & 144C(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act” Hereinafter.

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

assessee’s three appeals IT(TP)A Nos.500/Coch/2015, 12/Coch/2016 & 505/Coch/2016, for the assessment years 2008-2009, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 arise against Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) direction dated 09.09.2015, 23.12.2015 & 03.10.2016, respectively, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.92CA and 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short ... directed to be deleted.” 3. It transpires that the learned Assessing Officer has framed the impugned assessment dated 24.08.2012 in furtherance to the Dispute Resolution Panel, Banalore’s (DRP) directions in F.No.2/DRP/BNG/2015-16 dated 09.09.2015, wherein the latter passed a totally non-speaking order running into four pages, and that

M/S.Vallabhadas Kanji Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The ACIT, Alappuzha

ITA 12/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

M/S.Vallabhadas Kanji Ltd, Alappuzha vs. The DCIT, Alappuzha

ITA 500/COCH/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sri.R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Genpact Services Llc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 M/S Genpact Services Llc Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 22A & B, Sector-18, Income Tax, Udyog Vihar, Circle – Int. Tax 1(3)(1), Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana-122002 (Pan: Aaccg3353P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Ms. ReemaFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 144C(13)

pursuance to the DRP directions. 2 That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") are bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed as the same have been passed in violation of the provisions

S& P Capital (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2215/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas,Mrudulata and Shri Kranthi, C.AsFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Limited, Hyderabad (“the assessee”) against the final assessment order of learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) dated 29/10/2018 passed as per the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“Ld. DRP”), for the A.Y. 2014-15, u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 2. Facts ... Capital IQ (India) Private Limited, Survey 1. No.12P, Kondapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District, Hyderabad-500081 2. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. 3. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Bengaluru. 4. Director of Income Tax, HQs, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER

Pegasystems Worldwide India Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 342/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.342/Hyd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pegasystems Worldwide Vs. Income Tax Officer India (P) Ltd Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecp3453F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas Kranthi & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/08/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CAs Kranthi & MrudulathaFor Respondent: : Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

pursuant to the directions u/s 144C(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru, dated 3.12.2015 and pertains to A.Y 2011-12. Page 1 of 12 ITA 342 of 2016 Pegasystems Worldwide India Pvt Ltd 2. The assessee has raised multiple grounds