“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

Jamshedpur Continuous Annealing & Processing Company Private Limited, Kolkata vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 595/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad&Shri Anikesh Banerjee]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 270A

brevity AO) U/s 143(3) rws144C (13)/ 144B of the Income Tax Act (brevity the Act) dated 25/10/2021in pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (in brevity DRP), New Delhi, dated 13/09/2021 issued U/s 144C(5) of the Act pertains to Assessment years2017

Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1884/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. (Formerly Vs. The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad. 4Th Floor, D-Wing, Zydus Corporate Park, Scheme No.63, Survey No.536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr.Vaishnodvi Circle, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacc 6253 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

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

following Grounds of Appeal for the kind adjudication of the Hon'ble ITAT: 1. That the learned Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer / Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') has erred in law and on facts in making following upward Transfer Pricing adjustments in respect of international transactions a. Addition of Rs.11 ... Number 954/Ahd/ 17 and 213/ Ahd/18: 8 "10. We find that the stand taken by the Dispute Resolution Panel, granting relief to the assessee on this point, came up for consideration before a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, and, vide order dated 3rd March 2017, it has been upheld

Saic Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co . Ltd., Shanghai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building

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

ITA 2194/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

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”) 2020-21. 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the assessing ... barred by limitation. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the directions issued by the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') is non-est and invalid in absence of Document Identification Number ('DIN"), though intimated subsequently. 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

against the returned loss of INR 5,10,67,809 in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') is bad in law and void ab-initio. 2 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... completed the assessment on total income of Rs. 63,88,750/- in pursuance to the directions given by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) including 3 therein disallowance of Rs. 5,12,89,562/- on account of advertisement and business promotion expenses and disallowance

Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward 4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.987/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sungard Availability Services Lp, The Income Tax C/O.Suite 320, 565 Ease V Officer(It), Swedesford Road, Wayne, S Ward-4, Pune. Pennsylyania19087, Usa. B.O.Bhavan, Sector No.17, Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune – 411009. Pan: Abtfs0527J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Ganesh Bare – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 11.07.2023 Passed By Income Tax Officer(It), Ward-4, Pune Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, Passed In Pursuance To Directions Issued By Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2023.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sungard Availability Services Lp, Usa [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Ward-4, Pune under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, passed in pursuance to directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP) under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.06.2023.The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : Sungard Availability

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 381/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 92CSection 92C(3)

assessment year 1 M/s. Linde India Limited 2012-13. The impugned order was emanated in pursuance to the direction of the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi dated22.11.2016. 2. The assessee has taken the following revised grounds of appeal: “1. Order bad in law and on facts ... and/or recording that any of the conditions prescribed in section 92C(3) of the Act, were satisfied. 1.3 For that the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in not holding that the order dated 29 January 2015 passed by Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the draft assessment order

Padmakar Vishwas Date, Bhosari vs. Income Tax E Assessment, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

Section 201Section 234Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA] or section 144, to the income assessed, or to the amount ... section 115WG; (b) an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA] or section 150; (ba) an order of assessment or reassessment under section

Padmakar Vishwas Date, Bhosari vs. Income Tax E Assessment, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 930/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Section 201Section 234Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

Padmakar Vishwas Date, Bhosari vs. Income Tax E Assessment, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 929/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Section 201Section 234Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

Bhartiya International Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2110/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 156Section 195Section 40

assessment order dated 29.07.2022 passed under Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13) of the Act passed in pursuance of directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) dated 02.06.2022, relevant to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The concise Grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced hereunder for adjudication

Ge Energy Parts Inc, Wildwood Parkway Atlanta Ga Us vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3199/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 90

Officer dated 11.09.2023 passed u/s 143(3)/144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) arising out of order of Dispute Resolution Panel (in short ‘DRP’) dated 08.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The grounds of appeal reads as under:- Grounds relating to the tenability

International Management Group (Uk) Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (International Taxation)- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3177/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

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

Officer dated 11.09.2023 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 17.08.2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal reads as under:- 1. That in the facts and circumstances ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO as well as Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") erred in not appreciating that the receipts of Rs. 13,41,45,738/- are effectively connected with the admitted PE and is accordingly to be taxed

Anjali Puri, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14C(3)Section 192Section 234BSection 270ASection 6(1)Section 9Section 90

taxable income retuned in the income tax return 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP")/AO have erred in not granting benefit of tax exemption under Article 15 of the India - Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 2 Anjali ... Rs.1,05,42,985/- on account of salary received was made to the income of the Assessee. Aggrieved, the Assessee approached ld. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"), the ld. DRP vide its directions dated April 19, 2023, affirming the addition proposed by the Assessing Officer. 8. Based on directions issued

Sanjay Kumar, Ireland vs. ACIT, Int.Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1479/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 15Section 270ASection 5Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Learned Assistant commissioner of Income tax, DCIT/ACIT - Int Tax, Gurgaon ("Ld. AO") in pursuant to directions of Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") is wrong and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. DRP/AO

Brandix Apparal India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 627/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.627/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Brandix Apparel India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Apsez, Pudimadaka Road, Circle-5(1), Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530011. Pan: Aaccb 6569 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kriplani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Darpan KriplaniFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

passed a draft assessment order on 28/12/2017. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP]. Before the Ld. DRP, the assessee made various submissions including objections were raised with respect to selection of comparables in relation to processing services

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 626/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./(I.T.)I.T.A.No.626/Viz/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Teejay India Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Apsez, Pudimadaka Road Income Tax Atchutapuram Mandal Circle-5(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaaco9452H] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Darpan Kirpalani ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Balakrishnan S

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is liable to be quashed. 2. That the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“learned DRP”) erred in not appreciating that the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer-2, Hyderabad (“learned TPO”) passed under section 92CA

Teejay India Private Limited., Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 44/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.(Tp).A. No.44/Viz/2017 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13) Teejay India Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 15, Brandix India Apparel Income Tax, City Private Limited Sez, Circle-5(1), 2Nd Floor, Direct Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram, Taxes Building, Mvp Double Visakhapatnam – 530 011. Road, Visakhapatnam, Pan: Aaaco 9452 H Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kirpalani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

independent analysis 4 considering the single year margin. Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order, the assessee filed its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [Ld. DRP]. The primary objection raised by the assessee before the Ld. DRP is with respect to the Ld. TPO’s decision in not considering

Expeditors International of Washington Inc, Usa vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2855/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6040/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 216/Del/2016, A.Y. 2012-13 Ita No. 559/Del/2017, A.Y. 2013-14 Ita No. 4838/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 7724/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 6040/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Sabre Glbl Inc. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Tax, Adv. Circle-3(1)(2), C/O. Ms Associates, International Tax F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sabre Glbl Inc. Income Tax, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. International Taxation, C/O. Ms Associates, New Delhi F-99, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 Pan : Aaact7216Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr

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

30th September, 2015. 7. That on facts and in law the order passed by Assessing Officer {hereinabove referred to as the “AO”} and Dispute Resolution Panel {hereinabove referred to as the “DRP”} are bad in law and void ab- initio. That the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

Sabre Glbl Inc., New Delhi vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle- 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7724/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

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