“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

Nikesh Arora, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Gurgon

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

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

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, AY: 2017-18 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Before we proceed to deal with the substantive issues arising in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, a complaint dated

Azingo Soft Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 460/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 92C

passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C I.T.A. Nos. 460 & 331/Hyd/2015 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), consequent to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel , Hyderabad [“Ld. DRP”]. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals are decided by this common order. 2. At the outset, it is seen ... September 2013 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, pursuant to the directions dated 28 November 2014 by Dispute Resolution Panel, Hyderabad ('DRP') u/s 144C(8) of the Act is bad in law and void ab-initio. Page 2 of 14 I.T.A. Nos. 460 & 331/Hyd/2015

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Azingo Soft Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 92C

Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7 (1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1484/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1484/Mum/2021

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vachaspati Tripathi, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 253(1)Section 92C

Mumbai, under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act, in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'learned DRP'), on the following grounds, which are independent of and without prejudice to each other. On the facts ... first instance forward the draft order of the proposed assessment and on receiving the said order, the assessee may approach the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), by raising objections. If the assesse accepts the variations, then the AO shall proceed by framing the final assessment order and if the objections

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vs. Fysolate Technologies, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 182/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.182/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Fysolate Technologies, Income Tax, Vijayawada. Vijawayada. Pan: Aacff5633L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Mithilesh Sannareddy ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 15/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri Mithilesh SannareddyFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Draft Assessment Order U/s. 144C of the Act dated 05/05/2021 asking the assessee to file objection / appeal against the order either before Dispute Resolution Panel [“DRP”] or before the Ld. CIT(A). In response, the assessee submitted that it wishes to file an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter

Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 930/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Bosch Rexroth (India) Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Near Village Iyava Ward-1(1)(3) Sanand Viramgam Highway Ahmedabad V/S. Tal: Sanand Dist: Ahmedabad – 382 170 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacm 9898 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Captioned Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer, Ahmedabad Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.143C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act) Order Dated 12/12/2015 Passed In Pursuance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short “Drp”) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 10/12/2014. Bosch Rexroth India Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

r.w.s.143C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act) order dated 12/12/2015 passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short “DRP”) under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 10/12/2014. Bosch Rexroth India Ltd. vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2010-11 2 Facts

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Capgemini India Private Limited, Airoli, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 55, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2657/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M P LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

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

shall and equated to limitation specially when further proceedings are contemplated under the Act such as passing draft assessment order, remedy before Dispute resolution panel and final assessment order. There is no necessity or occasion to read the word "may" as "shall". Sub- sections 3A and 4 were introduced ... option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection to any such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel and also the Assessing Officer. Sub- section (5) of section 144C of the Act provides that if any objections are raised by the assessee before

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.684/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.685/Chny/2022 (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Regen Renewable Energy Acit बनाम Generation Global Limited International Taxation New No.1, Pulla Avenue, / Vs. Circle-2(1), Chennai. Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcr-0685-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

final assessment orders both dated 07-07- 2022 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 r.w.s.144, pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated 13-06-2022. Facts as well as issues are stated to be identical in both the years ... loss returned by the assessee. This amendment is effective from 01-04-2020 which is clear from explanatory memorandum as under: - Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies and any person in whose case transfer

M/S Regen Renewable Energy Generation Global Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (CA) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 234B

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 833/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R

Section 144CSection 147Section 148

reliance on the judicial decisions which are distinguishable both on facts of the case and provisions of law. 8. The Learned assessing Officer/ Dispute resolution panel erred in making- incorrect conclusions by drawing the references to clauses in the agreement in the order passed under section 147 r.w.s

M/S. Steer America Inc., United States vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle -1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 832/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R

Section 144CSection 147Section 148

Internatinal Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.6(c) of the appeal is allowed

ITA 587/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel was passed on 30th December 2015. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 587/Mum/2016 and appeal of the learned Assessing Officer in ITA No.964/Mum/2016, travelled ... held as under:- "7. In principle we concur with the submissions of learned Counsel for the assessee. We find that the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel in assessee's India branch is for anterior Assessment Year 2014-15 and are subsequent in time i.e., dated 22/09/2017, whereas, in assessee

Shri Anurag Lakshman Pande, Rajouri Garden vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Int. Tax .2(2) (2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2046/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2020-21

PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 27.06.2023 passed in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. In ground no. 1, the assessee has challenged the addition of long term capital gain

Fixed & Mobile Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcf4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Article 12 of the India Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ( referred further as ‘Relevant DTAA’). 2.3 The Appellant filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on April 12, 2023 against the draft assessment order, wherein, DRP passed its directions on December 2, 2022 and observed that the ‘make available’ clause

Tek Systems Global Services Private Limited, Hyderbad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderbad

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

ITA 487/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

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

extent detrimental to the Appellant. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP)/ NeAC erred in upholding the action of the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) in making an adjustment

Raghav Sadanand Prabhu, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1806/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Raghav Sadanand Prabhu Income Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Flat No. 2, Pawan Building, Air India Building, Room No. 1631, Vs. 16Th Floor, Nariman Point, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Agvpp 7832 L (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya : Shri Anil Sant Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('ld. DRP' for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee had challenged the appeal on the grounds of violation

Je Energy Ventures Private Limited, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 513/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92B

r.w.s.144C (13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) subsequent to the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide direction dated 08/12/2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18. J E Energy Ventures Private Limited vs. DCIT 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds ... Energy Ventures Private Limited vs. DCIT Hull-White method for bench marking the transaction. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and after considering the submissions of the assessee, they sustained the ALP adjustment proposed by the TPO. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee

Uthuman Sahib Shaji, Pathanapuram vs. DCIT, Circle, International Taxation, Trivandrum

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

ITA 998/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R

Section 144C

assessing officer is against facts, law and circumstances of the case. 2. The assessing officer has erred in referring the assessment to the Dispute Resolution Panel as the requisite conditions are not satisfied in the present case. 3. The assessing officer and-the Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have found ... that the provisions of section 144C of the Income tax Act are not applicable to the appellant. 4. The assessing officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel has grossly erred in not considering and deciding the preliminary objection raised Uthuman Sahib Shaji, Pathanapuram Page 2 of 4 by the appellant regarding

Sitapuram Power Limited-Erstwhile Amalgamating Company (Now Amalgamated Company-Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआआआआ आआआआ आआ./ I.T.A. (Tp) No.79/Hyd/2022 (आआआआआआआआ आआआआ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Erstwhile Amalgamating Company Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of – Sitapuram Power Limited Income Tax, Pan:Aajcs2098E Circle-1, (Now Amalgamated Company – Nellore. Zuari Cement Limited), Kadapa. Pan:Aajcs2098E (आआआआआआआआआ/ Appellant) (आआआआआआआआआआ/ Respondent) आआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ/ Appellant : Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra & Nitin Narang By आआआआआआआआआआआ आआ आआ आआ / : Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Respondent By आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ / Date Of : 15/05/2024 Hearing आआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date Of : 02/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Adv. Shri Deepak Chopra &

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ISection 92Section 92(3)Section 92BSection 92D

required to be passed in the name of the present appellant ie., Zuari Cement Limited. The assessee in its objection before the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. DRP”) at page 87 vide ground 2.8.2 has raised a specific ground that the assessee Sitapuram Power Limited got amalgamated with the present

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Gupshup Technology India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2327/MUM/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kumar Agrawal, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 153BSection 92C

option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection to any such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel and also the Assessing Officer. Sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Act provides that if any objections are raised by the assessee before ... Dispute Resolution Panel, the Panel is empowered to issue such direction as it thinks fit for the guidance of the Assessing Officer after considering various details provided in Clauses (A) to (G) thereof. Sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Act provides that upon receipt of directions issued under