← 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

Bay Capital India Fund Limited, Mauritius vs. Assistance Commissioner of Income Tax, Air India, Nariman Point, Mumbai

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

ITA 4475/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: ShriAnil Sant – Addl.CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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 b/forward Long term ... capital losses. After considering the issue, the DRP vide its order passed u/rule 13 of the Incometax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009, dated 01-12-2017, had concluded, that following the rationale adopted for allowing the carry forward of brought forward STCL, the Long term capital losses amounting

Huawei International Co. Limited, Hongkong vs. ACIT, Int.Tax.2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 552/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (hereinafter referred to as the Hon'ble DRP") in assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 3,27,11,930. 2 That ... section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (hereinafter referred to as the Hon'ble DRP") in assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 3,85,08,696/-. 2 That

Huawei International Co. Ltd, Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle-International Taxation 2(1) (1) New Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1815/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (hereinafter referred to as the Hon'ble DRP") in assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 3,27,11,930. 2 That ... section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1 (hereinafter referred to as the Hon'ble DRP") in assessing the income of the Appellant at INR 3,85,08,696/-. 2 That

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajjay Agarwal (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4295/Mum/2023 of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4295/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 250

only. Section 131 reads asunder, 131(1) The Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), [Joint Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals), Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and the Dispute Resolution Panel referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144-C shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3339/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144(10)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

Officer dated 28.09.2023 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 04.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: Ground No. 1: “Final Assessment order passed

Amplus Power Solutions Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT-Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 to 8 of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1213/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.1213/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Amplus Power Solutions P. Ltd., 6Th Floor, The Palm Square, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-66, Gurugram 122102, Haryana ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaoca0544J बनाम Vs. The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Circle1(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29.3.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Nine Grounds. The Ground No. 1 To 8 Of Appeal Are Against Addition Made On Interest On Non Convertible Debentures & Non Compliance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)/Assessing Officer (Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

appeal are against addition made on interest on Non Convertible Debentures and non compliance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Assessing Officer (AO). 2 3. Shri Nikhil Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that during the period relevant to assessment

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act'), in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, Bengaluru (DRP), on the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

ITO Int Taxn Ward, Tuticorin Chennai vs. Shri Abdul Rahman Viswa Abdul Salam, Chennai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 654/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.654/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Income-Tax Officer, Shri Abdul Rahman Viswas Abdul International Taxation Ward, Salam, No.64/114, Kalvath Nayagam Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu Street, Kadayanallur, Tenkasi Dist, Tn-627751 [Pan: Apppa9666L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Abhishek Murali, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 250

File his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer; or (b) File his objections, if any, to such variation with,- (i) the Dispute Resolution Panel; and ….” :- 4 -: 4.0 Aggrieved by the above order the assesse preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who deleted the additions made

Clinasia Labs Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 202/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri Nemichand Sirvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

/Pronouncement on: 11/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), for the assessment year 2016-17, under section 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income ... raising the following grounds : ITA-TP No. 202/Hyd/2021 “1. The Learned (Ld.) Assessing Officer ("AO")/Ld. Transfer pricing officer ("TPO") and the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") are erroneous in law and on the facts of the case. TP Grounds on Margins and Comparables

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act, pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bangalore (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated 23.06.2017. Since the assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE), the same were referred ... raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The learned Assessing Officer (learned AO'), learned Transfer Pricing Officer (learned TPO') and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') have grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 540,439,874 to the revenue earned from Associated Enterprises

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

filed by the assessee wherein following legal issues are raised by way of additional grounds. “1. The directions issued by the Hon. Dispute Resolution Panel are barred by the statute of limitation as provided in sections 144C(12), 144C(13) read with 144C(5) of the Act and hence ... upto the introduction of provisions of section 144C by way of Finance Act, 2009. 6.13 The section 144C deals with reference to the Dispute Resolution Panel. The first requirement to make available the provisions of section 144C to the assessee is available in sub- clause (1) of section 144C

D.Light Energy Private Limited, Gurgoan vs. ACIT, Circle -7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.516/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) D Light Energy P. Ltd., Unit No. 102, Block B, Pegasus One, First Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Gurgaon 122001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabcj9318G बनाम Vs. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Hari Om Jindal, Ar "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 260 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Eight Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are In Respect Of A Single Issue I.E. Adjustment Of Rs. 6,94,53,296/- On Account Of International Transaction Of Purchase Of Solar Goods/Lights & Reimbursement Of Expenses & Warranty Cost Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Hari Om Jindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

comparables is 25.42%. Thus, the profit margins of assessee is higher than that of the comparables. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP upheld, TNMM as the most appropriate method and also included two more companies in the list of comparables i.e. Avery Dennison India

Inabensa Bharat Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8128/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.8128/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Inabensa Bharat P. Ltd., A-225, Double Story, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabci0386D बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. This Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee In December 2018. Initially The Assessee Was Represented By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate. The Assessee Had Filed An Application For Early Hearing Of Appeal. The Same Was Allowed By The Tribunal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

Engineering service 95,989,974 segment Total 600,508,479 5. Aggrieved by the transfer pricing adjustments, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide directions dated 18.09.2018 granted part relief to the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the 4 impugned order in accordance with

ITO (It) TDS-2, Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8707/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

New Skies Satellites B.V., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2733/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2021-22] New Skies Satellites B.V., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ernst & Young Llp, Golf Cirlce-2(2)(2), View Corporate Tower, Tower-B, International Taxation, Sector-42, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaccn1866C Appellant Respondent Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By S/Shri Vivek K. Upadhayay, Sr. Dr & Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2024 Order Per G.S. Pannu, Vp : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2023. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

raised following Grounds of Appeal:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('the Panel') erred in not directing the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') to pass appropriate orders holding that the Appellant is not liable ... royalty and the AO also treated the same as fee for technical services. Aggrieved against this, the assessee filed objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) who following the order of the earlier year and confirmed the adjustment. Thereafter, the AO vide impugned order in pursuance of the direction

Daeseung Autoparts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 752/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.752/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd) Plot No,474, Mannur Village, Corporate Range-1, बनाम/ Vs. Valarpuram Post, Sriperumpudhur Taluk Chennai. Kanchipuram- 602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5629-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

order dated 19.01.2017 passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 92CA pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) dated 02.12.2016. Since the assessee carried out certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE), the same were ... Assistant Commissioner of Income - tax (OSD), Corporate Range 1, Chennai (Assessing Officer or the AO) pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bangalore (DRP) to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case

Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore, India

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

ITA 312/BANG/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

transactions, non-consideration of the applicable adjustments, non-provision of underlying agreements to establish comparability, amongst other aspects. 3.4That the Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have directed the exclusion of Esplande Developers Pvt. Ltd., given that said company is not comparable to the Appellant. 3.5 That the TPO erred ... selecting, and the Dispute Resolution Panel erred in not directing the inclusion of Kinetic Motor Company Ltd. and Saurashtra Cement Ltd. as comparable, despite the transaction undertaken by the said companies being comparable to that of the Appellant's. 3.6. That the lower authorities erred in not granting an adjustment

Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57 Income Tax Departmetnt, Mumbai

ITA 364/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DCIT-International Taxation-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4535/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan GovindekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

section 143(3) r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai-1, [“learned DRP”], under section 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2021-22. Hapag- Llyod Aktiengesellschaft ... Grant of Relief under Article 8 of the India - Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [„India Germany DTAA‟] 1.1 The learned Assessing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel [„DRP‟] has erred in not appreciating the facts in the case of the appellant and therefore appellant prays that the impugned order be treated