← 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

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka, Japan

ITA 102/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the General Ground Pressed Page 5 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 ... section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), General Ground Pressed Page 6 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 assessing

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

ITA 101/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the General Ground Pressed Page 5 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 ... section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), General Pressed Page 6 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 assessing

Kddi Corporation, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 2(1), Bangalore, Karnataka

ITA 100/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), assessing the General Ground Pressed Page 5 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 ... section 147 read with section 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in pursuance to the directions of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel - 2, Bengaluru ("Ld. DRP"), General Ground Pressed Page 6 of 32 S.P. Nos. 7 to 9/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos. 100 to 102/Bang/2024 assessing

Akunuri Sai Avinash, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 42/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2023 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Akunuri Sai Avinash, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Rep. By Gpa Holder Dr. Akunuri Income Tax, Sai Babu, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 12/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 50C

BALAKRISHNAN, Accountant Member : This appeal filed by the assessee is against the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru [in short „Ld. DRP‟] vide F.No. 73/DRP-1/BNG/2022-23, dated 19/12/2022 arising out of the order passed ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel is contrary to the facts and also the law appli8cable to the facts of the case. 2. The Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel ought to have

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT It 2 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaledenred Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O, Walker Chandiok & Income-Tax, International Co. Llp, 11Th Floor, Tower Taxation-2(2)(1) Ii, One International Room No.1722,17Th Floor, Center, S.B. Marg, Air India Building, Prabhadevi (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai – 400013 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacce8636P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Jitendra Singh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

taxable as Royalty under the Act as well as under the India - Singapore DTAA. 5. Management Service Fees taxed as Royalty The Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in directing the AO to follow its Directions of AY 2018-19 & AY 2019-20 for taxing Management Service fees as royalty ... service charges, management service fees as royalty and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP’). The ld. DRP vide order dated 27.06.2023 rejected the objection filed by the assessee and directed the assessing officer to pass

Advics Company Ltd., Karnataka vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “General Grounds ... income tax Act, 1965 (‘the Act’) pursuant Page 1 of 33 ITA No.- 1053/Del/2022 Advics Co., Ltd. to the directions of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. DRP’) is bad in law, unlawful and unjust. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Axis Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Axis Bank Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of “Trishul”, 3Rd Floor, Opp. Income-Tax, Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Circle 1(1)(1), Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aaacu 2414 K अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2023/03.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee-Appellant Has Challenged Correctness Of The Order Dated 28Th July, 2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. Disallowance In Respect Of Annual Technical Fees (Tax Effect - Rs. 16,84,276) 1.1 The Learned Drp Has Erred In Upholding Addition Made By Ao In Respect Of Treating Annual Technical Services (Ats) Fees Paid To Infosys Limited To The Extent Of Rs. 48.66 Lacs As Prior Period Expense. 1.2. It Is Submitted That The Expenditure Relates To Amount Payable To Infosys & No Part Of The Amount Was Claimed As Expenditure At Any Time In The 2 Axis Bank Limited Vs. Acit Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

draft assessment order framed in terms of section 144C of the Act. The assessee objected to the proposed disallowance to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the DRP directed the disallowance to be made merely to keep the issue alive ,noting that identical expenses disallowed in the preceding years were

East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2976/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआ.अ.सं.2976 2976/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2020-2021) 2976 2976 East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Ltd. C/O. Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29Th Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400 028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaece8814F बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal & Fenil Bhatt, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT (DR)
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 70(2)

against Rs.70,95,52,656/- offered by the Assessee. 4. Aggrieved against draft assessment order dated 8.9.2022, the Assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP vide direction dated 28.6.2023 dismissed the objections. The Assessing Officer in accordance with the directions of the DRP passed the impugned

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 539/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 80JSection 91

MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi [hereinafter the “ld. DRP”] dt. 09/06/2022, passed u/s 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year

Ups Jetair Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed, the ground no

ITA 1622/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

Assessee filed objections before the DRP. Since, the Assessee failed to get desired relief on the adjustments made by the TPO, from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), hence, the present appeal before 3 ITA No.1622 & 1591/MUM/2015 (A.Y 2010-11.) C.O.No.66/MUM/2015 (A.Y.2010-11) UPS Express P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT the Tribunal

ACIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ups Jetair Express Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1591/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.1622/मुं/2015 (नि.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 32Section 40

Assessee filed objections before the DRP. Since, the Assessee failed to get desired relief on the adjustments made by the TPO, from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. Apart from the adjustments made by the TPO, there were certain corporate additions made

Sunil Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3314/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Sunil Kapoor, Vs. Acit K-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Circle Intt. New Delhi-110 024 Taxation 2(1)(2) Pan Aoips5698J New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Tyagi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) pursuant to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Learned

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, these were

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in pursuance to the directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) pertaining to the Assessment Years (“AYs”) 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, these were

Dlf Urban Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle, 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1962/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Vs Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Circle 7(1), 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015 Pan: Aafcd3019C Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dlf Urban Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 15, Shivaji Marg, Circle 7(1), New Delhi – 110 015 New Delhi. Pan: Aafcd3019C (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Shri Satyajeet Goel & Shri Rajat Garg, Cas. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri R.S. SinghviFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

against returned loss of Rs.90,47,202/-, thereby proposing an addition of Rs.3,28,59,57,780/-. The before the Dispute Resolution panel (‘DRP’) and intends agitating the same in an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessment was completed vide assessment order dated 14.02.2020 u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3339/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], as per directions, dated 21/06/2023, issued by the CIT (Dispute Resolution Panel-2), Mumbai-1 (hereinafter referred to as `the DRP') under Section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds ... Support Service Fee of INR 306,89,93,843/- in the hands of the Appellant. The Appellant filed objections on 11/10/2022 before the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai (for short `DRP'). Vide order, dated 21/06/2023, the DRP rejected the aforesaid objections raised by the Appellant. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed

Defsys Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 758/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 153ASection 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

dismissal of the Revenue's SLP (C) [CC No. 16694/2013] on 27th September, 2013. 13. In Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel [2014] 369 ITR 113 (Mad.), a similar question arose. There, the Revenue sought to rectify a mistake by issuing a corrigendum after the final assessment order ... Zuari Cement Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) and a number of other decisions, the Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel (supra) quashed the final order of the AO and the demand notice. Interestingly, even as regards the corrigendum issued, the Madras High Court held that

Microsoft Global Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 251/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. N.Swapna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

added to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with such draft assessment order, assessee company filed objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), who passed the order on 12.03.2021. On receipt of the same, the DCIT/ACIT-TP-2, Hyderabad passed the Order Giving Effect on 6/4/2021, adjusting the software development segment ... separately, which may kindly be considered independent/ without prejudice of each other. 1 Final assessment order passed pursuant to directions of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is bad in law. 2 Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in determining the total income of Appellant

M/S. Grt Jewellers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, . Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 09.01.2024, in pursuant to directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, :-2-: ITA. No: 113/Chny/2024 Bangalore, dated 29.12.2023 u/s. 144C(5) of the Act, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee ... that the Order of the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and invalid. 2.2. For that the Dispute Resolution Panel ('Learned DRP') erred in upholding the action of Learned AO in reopening the assessment merely based on change of opinion which is not permissible

American Chemical Society, Usa vs. DCIT(International Tax), Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the application for stay on the recovery of outstanding demand filed by the applicant/assessee is dismissed

ITA 4615/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, American Chemical Vs. The Deputy Society, C/O Deloitte Commissioner Of Income Haskins & Sells Llp, Tax, (It), Circle -1(1)(1), 7Th Floor, Building 10, Room No. 17, 3Rd Floor, Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Mittal Court, 22 Nariman Complex, Dlf City Phase- Point, Mumbai Ii, Gurgaon – 122002 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No:Aalca4959L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 234ASection 253(1)(d)Section 9(1)(vi)

passed by the ld. DCIT(IT) Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai, dated 30.10.2023 for A.Y. 2021-22 in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel under section 144(C(5) of the Act issued on 21/09/2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “Appeal under section ... against the returned income of Nil. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") have erred in holding that the receipts from Indian customers are chargeable to tax as royalty in terms of Article 12(3) of India