“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

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

claimed was debited to the Hosur Unit since the 801C Units cater to domestic market. This issue came up in appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP), Chennai, and the Hon'ble DRP in its order in DRP/Chennai/44/2012 dated 31.08,2012 issued directions in this regard as follows: “Based

Brett Lee, Australia vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 867/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 3

Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14, in 2 pursuance to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (‘DRP’). 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, at the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3093/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w SamkitFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80Section 80ISection 92Section 92B

account of Transfer Pricing adjustment (Rs. 12.99 Cr.) 1 The Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO')/ Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') [following the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai ('DRP') under section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act')] grossly erred, on fact and in law, in making upward

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1195/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth SR.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, „the Act‟) date of order 29/12/2014 in pursuance to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai (in short, „DRP‟) passed U/s144C(5) of the Act, date of direction 14.11.2014. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds: - ―1.1 The transfer pricing adjustment made

Owens Corning, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissione of Income Tax _(International Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4627/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/w MsFor Respondent: 21.05.2024

Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.0 Re: Treating lease rentals received as 'Royalty': 1.1 The Assessing Officer ('AO')/ Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in taxing the lease rentals received by the Appellant of Rs 28,49,43,136 during the 2 ITA No.4627/Mum/2023-Owens Corning year under consideration

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Mumbai vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4139/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, DR

Section 112Section 115CSection 143Section 144C(5)Section 254Section 45Section 48Section 74

assessed at ₹7,41,60,670. Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia; A.Y. 2019-20 The assessment order is passed pursuant to direction of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) read with section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 4thAugust 2023. Brief facts of the case ... order was passed on 29/09/2021 u/s 143 (3) 144C(1) of the Act at Total income of Rs. 74160670/-. Assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai , which were not signed by the assessee, and therefore ld. DRP passed direction dismissing the objections. Assessee approached ITAT in ITA No 2179/Mum/2022

Honda R & D (India) P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1733/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2018-19 Honda R & D (India) Vs. Acit, Circle-10(1) P. Ltd. New Delhi. Technical Centre, Plot No. 2, Sector-3, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon Haryana 122050 Pan Aabch3071N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 13Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (herein after referred as “Learned AO”) pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (herein after referred as “Hon’ble DRP”) dated 8.4.2022 and the order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (herein after referred as “Learned

Panacea Boitec Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi. After considering the objections, the Learned TPO passed order dated 31.10.2019. Assessee preferred objections to the draft order. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi passed order dated 24.03.2021. After incorporation directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) dated 24.03.2021 Learned Assessing Officer (“Learned AO”) passed

Value Momentum Software Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 497/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. L. Sunitha Rao, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30/07/2022 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of ValueMomentum Software Services Private Limited, (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2018-19, under section 143(3) r.w.s

Imerys Ceramics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 494/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Mithilesh Sai, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 29/07/2022 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of M/s. Imerys Ceramics India Private Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2018-19, under section

Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1329/CHNY/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1329/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 2. Stay Application No.9/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1329/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) M/S. Aban Singapore Pte. Limited Dcit बनाम/ 113, Pantheon Road, Egmore S.O International Taxation-1(1), Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqca-2845-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 28Section 40Section 44ASection 44B

Income Tax, Intl.Taxation-1(1), Chennai (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru (DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 21-09-2023. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the sole

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2011-12, as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as `the DRP′] under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2.1. In ITA No. 884/Mum/2016, the Assessee has raised grounds

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Salesforce.Com Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation Circle-3(1)(2), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3347/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh: A.Y. 2018-19 : A.Y. 2019-20 : A.Y. 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

1924/Del/2022; & 1789 & 3347/Del/2023 pertaining to assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’). Since the appeals involve more or less common issues, they are being clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order for the sake

Telstra Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (3)(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi, India

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3318/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

short AY: 2021-22 ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2021-22, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. In ground nos. 1 to 4, the assessee has challenged the taxability of the amount received towards Bandwidth charges as royalty under section

Saleforce.Com Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2) Int, Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1789/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh: A.Y. 2018-19 : A.Y. 2019-20 : A.Y. 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

Selesforce.Com Singapure Pte Ltd., Singapure vs. ACIT International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1924/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh: A.Y. 2018-19 : A.Y. 2019-20 : A.Y. 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

Salesforce.Com Singapore Pte Ltd, Karnataka vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1923/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh: A.Y. 2018-19 : A.Y. 2019-20 : A.Y. 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (hereinafter the “ld. AO”) even dt. 29/04/2022, passed in pursuance of the directions of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, dt. 18/02/2022 for Assessment Year 2017-18 and dt. 04/03/2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19, passed u/s 144C ... under section 143(3) read with section 144C and section 144C(5) of the Act and the Directions of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble DRP’) dated February 18, 2022 for the said assessment year 2017-18 are contrary to the provisions