“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

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

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

Kennametal India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 506/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

grounds mentioned hereinafter are without prejudice to one another. 2.1 The Learned AO, Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned TPO") and Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP") grossly erred in determining an adjustment of INR 10,60,65,735/- with respect to the international transaction entered by the Appellant

Accel India Venture Fund II L.P., Cayman Islands vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2655/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Accel India Ventures Fund Ii Vs. Acit (International Taxation), L.P. Cayman Islands, Circle-1(1)(1), Walkers, 190 Elgin Avenue, New Delhi George Town, Grand Cayman Ky1 -9001, George Town, Not Listed 999999 Pan :Abpfa4451K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocate Department By Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2020-21, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2020-21 2. The assessee has raised various grounds, including a ground, being ground no. 4, challenging the validity of the assessment order in absence

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Vetco Gray Pte Ltd, Singapore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2537/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Disha Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 44B

Appellant had neither filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) nor filed any objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) and accepted the decision of the Assessing Officer. 8. Later, the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (International Tax), Delhi-3 issued the notice dated January

Tech Mahindra Buisness Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 521/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

assessee qua Transfer Pricing adjustment is inclusion of following companies in the list of comparables by the TPO and upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP): i) Eclerx Services Ltd. ii) Genesys International Corporation Ltd. iii) Infosys BPO Ltd. iv) Wipro Ltd. v) Informed Technologies India Ltd. The assessee

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1126/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Rita Sunil Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–

Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

144C (1) of the act was passed on 30/12/2022 determining total income of the assessee at ₹ 3,597,395/–.The assessee approached the dispute resolution panel which rejected the objections of the assessee as per direction dated 26/9/2023.Thus, the final order under section 144C (13) read with section 147 lead

Sunil Amritlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4069/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–

Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

dated 21.07.2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the direction issued by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The Assistant ... interest Income by HO, interest income of the overseas branch/HO of Rs. 19,22,06,830/-.” 3. The assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai on 28.10.2022. The DRP vide its order dated 27.06.2023 has dismissed the objection raised by the assessee and_ thereafter assessing officer

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 642/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

proceedings including proceedings before the completion of the entire proceedings including proceedings before the completion of the entire proceedings including proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Act within such time Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144C of the Act within such time Dispute Resolution Panel

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jtdy/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 2471/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234B

Conferencecall Services India Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adhak (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

passed the final assessment order after expiry of one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Ld. DRP) were ITA No.319/Chny/2018 for AY 2013-14 M/s.Conferencecall Services India Pvt. Ltd. :: 2 :: received by the Ld. AO, the impugned order shall ... returned income of Rs.37,23,48,860/-. Against the proposed addition made in draft assessment order, the assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter ‘the DRP’) and the DRP was pleased to reject the objections of the assessee on 08.09.2017, thereby, confirmed the adjustment made

Mcafee Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 110/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Officer (TPO) and disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. The assessee, being aggrieved by the DAO, filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide its directions dated 16.06.2022 disposed of the assessee's objections. Pursuant to the DRP's directions, Final Assessment Order

Home Credit International A.S., Czech Republic vs. Assistant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2068/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

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

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2020-21, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2020-21 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds, however, at the outset, the assessee has raised a pertinent issue questioning the validity ... proceeded to pass the final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 34. In Vijay Television (P) Ltd v. Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad) where again the AO passed the final assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act instead of passing

R A K Ceremics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 61/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 R.A.K. Ceramics India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, P.O Box No.11, Circle 3(1), Adb Road, Samalkot, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh. Pin – 53340, Pan : Aaccr6424N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aliasagar Rampurwala, C.A. Revenue By: B. Balakrishna – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2014-15 Arises From The Assessment Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under :

For Appellant: Shri Aliasagar Rampurwala, C.AFor Respondent: B. Balakrishna – CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 271BSection 92C

consequential assessment order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1) pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble Panel') and order of Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Hon'ble ITAT') under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C ... income of the assessee. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s 271BA were initiated separately. 3.1. Aggrieved to the addition, assessee company filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore, who directed to recompute the adjustments. As per the directions of DRP, Assessing Officer vide order dt.24.10.2018 has recomputed the final adjustment

Goldman Sachs International, C/O Ernst and Young LLP Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) (International Taxation) - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 565/BANG/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

raised by the assessee vide its directions dated 22.12.2023 for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Subsequent to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the impugned FAOs were passed on 25.01.2024. 5. Aggrieved by the FAOs passed for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, assessee

Goldman Sachs International, C/O Ernst Young LLP, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) (International Taxation) - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 564/BANG/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Key Point Technologies (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 252/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Key Point Technologies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (India) Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Rajaprasadamu, Circle – 2(1), Level 2, Wing 1B & 2, Hyderabad. Botanical Gardens Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan : Aadck1115A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2016-17 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.23.04.2021 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Development Of Mobile Application Software – User Interface Technology. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2016-17 On 30.11.2016 Admitting A Loss Of Rs.84,13,338/- & Deemed Total Income U/S 115Jb Of The Act Was Admitted At (-) Rs.84,83,289/-. The Return Filed Was Taken Up For Limited Scrutiny To Verify Whether Value Of International Transactions Is Correctly Shown In Form 3Ceb & Return Of Income. Accordingly, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 17.07.2017. In Response To The Notices, Assessee Furnished Information Called For & The Same Was Verified.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Wing 1B & 2, Botanical Gardens Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500 084. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. 3 Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Bengaluru. 4 Director of Income Tax (IT & TP), Hyderabad. 5 Pr.CIT(Central), Hyderabad. 6 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 7 Guard File

M/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi DCIT-Cir 2(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 540/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, Shri AmolFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92

order of the learned Transfer Pricing Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing 3(1)(1) ("TPO'), and the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP'); is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. Without prejudice to the generality

Volvo Information Technology Ab, Sweden vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2169/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

Income-tax Act, 1961 AY: 2020-21 Volvo Information Technology AB (in short ‘the Act’) in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Ground No. 1 of the main grounds is general in nature, hence, does not require specific adjudication. 3. In ground no.2