“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

Goodyear India Ltd, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

346/DEL/2022 (A.Y 2017-18) 1. That the impugned order of assessment framed by the assessing officer in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘DRP’) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income ... appellant with its associated enterprises, on the basis of order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (‘TPO’) and sustained by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’). 2. That the DRP/ TPO erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 10,38,00,000/-allegedly on account

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)

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

Page 11 of 36 ITOCHU Corporation 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in making an addition of Rs.79.48.43,605/-and holding that Itochu India Private Limited (Itochu India'), and other agents constitute a dependent

Berlian Mcdermott Sdn. Bhd., Noida vs. Ac, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 479/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.479/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2020-21) Berlian Mcdermott N. Bhd. C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector-136, Noida, Up 201304 Pan: Aagcb-6291-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 44B

application for admission of additional grounds of appeal dated 18.07.2023 vide which the assessee has inter alia assailed validity of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on the ground of limitation. 3. The assessee vide another application dated 27.06.2024 has raised an additional ground of appeal challenging validity

Vinay Parmanand Hariani, Mumbai vs. ITO International Taxation Ward 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2891/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito International Taxation, Vinay Parmanand Hariani Ward 2(2)(1), C/O. Chaturvedi Piyush & Co. Room No.1725, 17Th Floor, 3-D1, Court Chambers, Air India Building, Vs. New Marine Lines, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabph4179A Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chaturvedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

29th 5. May, 2023, the total income was assessed at ₹3,77,48,290/-. 6. The assessee preferred the objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel(1), Mumbai. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel who passed direction on 27th February, 2024. Based on this direction, the learned Assessing Officer passed ... learned Authorized Representative referred to the assessee’s submission at paragraph no.9.1 of the order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. He submitted that explanation of the assessee was given which was accepted by the learned Vinay Parmanand Hariani; A.Y. 2017-18 Assessing Officer in remand report, however, failed

Invesco Uk Limited, Uk vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 274

Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. (AAR No. 883 of 2009). As a result, the Assessee preferred objections before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") vide objections dated 18.04.2022. In furtherance of the same, the Assessee made detailed submissions with reliance on case laws to evidence the position that instances

Invesco Holding Company (Us) Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 274

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation Circle, Noida

ITA 7276/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

passed by Circle Int. Tax, u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi. ITA No. 7276/Del/2018 & Other 3 appeals of the assessee 2 2. On hearing both the sides, the Sr. Counsel has submitted ... made by HTAS Total Adjustments / Additions 15,57,99,490 5. Aggrieved, the Appellant had filed objections to the draft assessment order before Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi (‘DRP’) under section 144C of the Act. 6. The DRP disposed-off the objections filed by the Appellant by partly confirming

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

ITA 1160/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

Macromill Research India LLP (Formerly Market Tools Research P. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Cirlce-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 501/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 92CA(3) and Section 144C was issued on 23.12.2013. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which on September 26, 2014, directed the TPO to make adjustments under Section 92CA(3). The TPO re-evaluated

ACIT, Cirlce-5 (1), Hyderabad vs. Market Tools Research Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 424/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Market Tools & Research Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1935/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

Macromill Research India LLP (Formerly Market Tools Research Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1866/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav

Section 234BSection 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 92C(2)

Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) by order dated 12.12.2023 pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (‘DRP’ in short), Bengaluru, direction u/s 144C(5) dated 29.11.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ‘’1. Ground 1-General Hyundai ... Automotive India Private Limited ('Indian Subsidiary') amounting to INR 3,908,249 (Tax effect-INR 1,641,465) 2.1. The Ld. AO and Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and has erroneously concluded that the guarantee fees received by the Appellant amounting

Hospira Healthcare India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

ITA 469/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Chny/2017 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Hospira Healthcare India The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, Sri-Nivas, New No.86 (Old No.89), Corporate Circle-2(2), Gn Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aaabco 2190F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A Jkथ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In Pursuance Of The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (Hereinafter ‘Drp’) Vide Directions Dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, C.A JKFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengalore (hereinafter ‘DRP’) vide directions dated 09.11.2016. :- 2 -: 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and selling ... contentions of the Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ld. AO’) and Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (‘Ld. TPO’), based on the directions issued by Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble DRP’), to the extent prejudice to the Appellant, is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case. 2. Ground 2 – Disallowance

Sunil Chablani, Ajmer, Rajasthan vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 68/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT-DR)

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 45

after referred as Id. AO ] for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 29.12.2023 which in turn passed after the directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel ( in short “DRP'] passed under Section 144C(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28.11.2023. 2. ITA No. 68/JP/2024 ... dt.30.03.2022 and the consequent, impugned assessment order dt.29.12.2023 complete nullity being without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 3.1. The Id. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (DRP-1) has not providing any opportunity despite mandatory procedure statutorily prescribed u/s 144C (5) of the Act. Thus, the impugned order

Sanjay Manoharlal Narang, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward - 3 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3180/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. De Beers U K Limited Income Tax ( International C/O S R Batliboi & Co Taxation 2(1) (1) Mumbai 14Th Floor 17Th Floor Air India Building The Ruby Nariman Point 29, Senapati Bapatmarg Mumbai Dadar W Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct5530B

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant , SR DR

Section 143Section 144C

basis of these services the learned assessing officer held that the services provided are value-added services provided in earlier years. The dispute resolution panel for assessment year 2007 – 08, 2008 – 09 and 2009 – 10 has upheld treatment of value-added services as fees for technical services and taxed them ... with section 144C was also passed on 14/2/2017 as the assessee submitted that it is opting not to file its objections before the dispute resolution panel. Thus, the draft order was finalized on a similar line. ITA number 2466/M/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 The ACIT Int tax 2 (1) (1) , Mumbai

Rachna Narang, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward - 3 (3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3179/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant , SR DR

Section 143Section 144C

Rbw Global Sarl, Mumbai vs. ACIT(International Taxation) Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 733/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

Appellant submits that the Order dated 07 September 2018 passed by the Assessing Officer, in pursuance of the Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel is bad in law and deserves to be struck down. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING: 2:0 Re.: Validity of the re-assessment proceedings ... Assessing Officer / the Dispute Resolution Panel have erred in re-opening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2:2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the impugned re-opening and the Order passed

Jushi India Fiberglass Private Limited, Lower Parel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Churchgate, Mumbai

In the results, in the comparability study after giving working capital

ITA 1163/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 92B

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following issues:- 1. Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and consequently the learned Assessing Officer (""AO") erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition

India Property (Mauritius) Company II, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1020/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 90(2)

hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”) pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19, in 2 pursuance to directions dated 19.01.2023 of learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (DRP). 2. The facts are that the Appellant is a company incorporated in Mauritius and is engaged in the business