“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

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl. Tax Circle - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3365/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord Dredging & Marine Contractors Bv 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach3500M ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400 021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 234A

section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') pursuant to the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') on the following grounds, each of which is without prejudice to one another: General Ground On the facts and in the circumstances

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

under section 143(3) read with section 144C 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”) 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “That on the facts ... Motherson Sumi Systems Limited vs. DCIT 1. That the Assessment Order passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is a vitiated order as the Ld. DRP has erred both on facts and in law, in not considering the submissions made by the Appellant

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 194/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Against the draft assessment order the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP rejected all the objections of the assessee. Pursuant to the DPR directions, the impugned final assessment orders were passed for the above years. 6. Aggrieved by the final assessment orders

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 193/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Benagluru

From or relate to the Services

ITA 192/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos.191 To 194/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Google Ireland Limited, Ireland vs. DCIT (It), JCIT(OSD) (It) - Circle 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

Sridhar, Usa, Shrewsbury Ma vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 68/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 147

25/03/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of Sridhar (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2015-16, under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income

Schindler China Elevator Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3355/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh, Schindler China Elevator Vs. The Assistant Company Limited Commissioner Of Income C/O Bansi S. Mehta & Co., Tax, Int. Tax, Circle Merchant Chamber, 3Rd 4(2)(1), Room No. 1708, Floor, 41, New Marin 17Th Floor, Air India Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aascs8166L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

Taxation, Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) on 24.07.2023 in pursuance to directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act vide order dated 28.06.2023 for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessee has raised the following grounds before ... taxable as income from composite contract liable for taxation in India @ 40% (plus cess/surcharge). 3. The assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel on 21.10.2022. The DRP vide order u/s 144C(5) of the Income Tax 1961 dated 28.06.2023 has rejected the objection of the assessee. In pursuance

Ronald Bhushan Raj Kammuri, Malkajgiri vs. ITO(Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 334/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(ii)

21/03/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of Ronald Bhushan Raj Kammuri (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2020-21, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2014/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2018-19 2. In ground nos. 1 to 8, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.1,77,95,000/- on account of Transfer

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 66/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 64 To 66/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Josan Industries, Vs. The Dcit Circle-1, बनाम Jalalabad, International Taxation, H.O., Guruharshai, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaafj7294F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

Pronouncement : 19.03.2024 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain, Vice President: ITA No. 64/Chd/2023 is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi [herein referred to as ‘the DRP’] dated 13.12.2022, for the Assessment Year 2013-14, taking the following effective grounds of appeal

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 65/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

M/S Josan Industries, Jalalabad vs. DCIT, Cl-1, Intl. Taxation, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 64/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kahlon, CIT DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

Adil Rehman, Hyderabad vs. ITO(Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Anil A. Masand, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 147Section 48

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 10/11/2023 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of Shri Adil Rehman (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2014-15, under section 147 r.w.s. 144C

Pegasystems Worldwide India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2390/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 26/10/2018 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of M/s. Pegasystems Worldwide (India) Private Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2014-15, under section

Norwest Venture Partners X - Mauritius, Mauritius vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 2311/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 71(4)

read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP’), pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Though the assessee has raised certain legal issues in grounds no.1 to 4, however

Nikon India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 154Section 92BSection 92C

there was no agreement, understanding or arrangement between the Appellant and the AE for incurrence of such expenditure by the Appellant and the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in upholding the same. 4.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP / TPO have ... expenditure for development of brand owned by its foreign AE. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objection against the said order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(2) of the Act. The DRP vide order dated March 17, 2022 endorsed the AMP spends to be bracketed

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

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

ITA 225/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

18/03/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of TPSC (India) Private Limited, (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2936/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND