← 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

Bechtel Power Corporation, United States vs. ACIT Circle-Internationa Taxation 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed on this

ITA 8905/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &

796/Del/2021 ORDER Captioned appeals by two different assessees challenge the final assessment orders passed in pursuance to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2. Since the facts and issues involved in all these appeals are, more or less ... 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

Bechtel Limited, United Kingdom vs. ACIT Circle- International Taxation 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed on this

ITA 8904/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &

796/Del/2021 ORDER Captioned appeals by two different assessees challenge the final assessment orders passed in pursuance to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2. Since the facts and issues involved in all these appeals are, more or less ... 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

Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. ADIT - International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 572/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri SK Mohanty &For 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 22/09/2023 passed consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), in the case of M/s. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., (“the assessee”), for the assessment year 2020-21 under section 143(3) r.w.s

M/S. Van-Oord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1987/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Van Oord India Pvt. Ltd. 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Kalina, Raheja Towers, Opp. Sidbi, Mumbai-400 098 Pan: Aaach5430J ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit Circle 5(3) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Divesh Chawle, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Ld. DR
Section 114Section 250Section 28Section 92(1)

application of Chapter-X fails. [Para 8] An identical situation arose in assessee's own case for assessment year 2013-14 where the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') vide its order dated 18-9-2017 held that transfer pricing regulations do not apply to the assessee to the extent of operations

Ingram Micro India Ssc P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Range-14(1)(1) (Jurisdictional Asssessing Oficer), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1320/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, Shri Ajit Kumar Jain Mentioned That He Is Pressing Only Grounds Number 2(G) Which Pertains To Inclusion Of Certain Companies By The Tpo Which Are Not Functionally Comparable. Therefore, We Are Not Elaborating On Any Other Issue. The Facts Pertaining To The Ground 2(G) As Culled Out From The Records Are Narrated Below. Other Grounds Raised Are Dismissed As Not Pressed.

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

Ingram Micro India SSC Pvt. Ltd Assessment Years 2016-17 pursuant to the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel, Mumbai (“DRP”). 2. The Assessee company was incorporated in the year 2012 and it is engaged in providing information technology support services to it associated enterprises. The return of income

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

required to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee. The assessee may file its acceptance/ objections before the dispute resolution panel and the AO. If the assessee intimates ITA Nos.3232, 3233, 3234 & 3235/Mum/2018 Marriott International Inc; A.Ys. 06-07 to 09-10 acceptance ... Before issuing the directions, the DRP may also make such further enquiry by any income tax authority. Upon receipt of the direction from dispute resolution panel the AO shall in conformity with a direction complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the direction

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3234/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

required to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee. The assessee may file its acceptance/ objections before the dispute resolution panel and the AO. If the assessee intimates ITA Nos.3232, 3233, 3234 & 3235/Mum/2018 Marriott International Inc; A.Ys. 06-07 to 09-10 acceptance ... Before issuing the directions, the DRP may also make such further enquiry by any income tax authority. Upon receipt of the direction from dispute resolution panel the AO shall in conformity with a direction complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the direction

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3233/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

required to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee. The assessee may file its acceptance/ objections before the dispute resolution panel and the AO. If the assessee intimates ITA Nos.3232, 3233, 3234 & 3235/Mum/2018 Marriott International Inc; A.Ys. 06-07 to 09-10 acceptance ... Before issuing the directions, the DRP may also make such further enquiry by any income tax authority. Upon receipt of the direction from dispute resolution panel the AO shall in conformity with a direction complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the direction

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, by allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee for all these four years, the draft assessment orders for those years are quashed and appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3232/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla/ Pratik Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 156Section 254

required to forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee. The assessee may file its acceptance/ objections before the dispute resolution panel and the AO. If the assessee intimates ITA Nos.3232, 3233, 3234 & 3235/Mum/2018 Marriott International Inc; A.Ys. 06-07 to 09-10 acceptance ... Before issuing the directions, the DRP may also make such further enquiry by any income tax authority. Upon receipt of the direction from dispute resolution panel the AO shall in conformity with a direction complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the direction

Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 7356/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

proposed variation made in its return of income on account of upward adjustment in arm’s length price before the Dispute Resolution Panel as well as before the assessing officer within 30 days of receipt of the draft order in accordance with the provisions of Clause (b) of sub- section ... 144C of the Act. However, the assessee has not filed any objection within the period specified before the Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore, the assessing officer has finalized the assessment on the basis of the draft order referred in sub-section (1) of Sec. 144C of the Act, after making addition

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 2594/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

proposed variation made in its return of income on account of upward adjustment in arm’s length price before the Dispute Resolution Panel as well as before the assessing officer within 30 days of receipt of the draft order in accordance with the provisions of Clause (b) of sub- section ... 144C of the Act. However, the assessee has not filed any objection within the period specified before the Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore, the assessing officer has finalized the assessment on the basis of the draft order referred in sub-section (1) of Sec. 144C of the Act, after making addition

Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Chennai vs. DCIT International Taxation -1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 365/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Dassault Systems Simulia Corp Dcit C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, International Taxation-1(1), बनाम/ 7Th Floor, Asv Ramana Towers Chennai. Vs. 52, Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcd-3705-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nandakumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 155(14)Section 199

Income Tax, International 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 27-12-2022. The sole substantive grievance of 2 the assessee is denial ... authorities. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: 1.1. The order of the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") is contrary to canons of equity and natural justice, contrary to law and facts involved, not based on facts and circumstances

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dong A India Automotive Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 1365/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

2159/Chny/2017 are directed against, separate orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer dated 11.01.2017, 29.11.2017 & 27.06.2017, in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel- Bangalore, dated 22.12.2016, 14.09.2017 & 22.05.2017, respectively, and pertains to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. This bunch of four cross appeals filed

Dong-A India Automotive Pvt Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 360/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

2159/Chny/2017 are directed against, separate orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer dated 11.01.2017, 29.11.2017 & 27.06.2017, in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel- Bangalore, dated 22.12.2016, 14.09.2017 & 22.05.2017, respectively, and pertains to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. This bunch of four cross appeals filed

Daesung Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 585/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

2159/Chny/2017 are directed against, separate orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer dated 11.01.2017, 29.11.2017 & 27.06.2017, in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel- Bangalore, dated 22.12.2016, 14.09.2017 & 22.05.2017, respectively, and pertains to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. This bunch of four cross appeals filed

Komos Automotive India Pvt Ltd, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee’s in ITA No

ITA 2159/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 585/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ls Automotive India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Daesung V. Income Tax (Osd), Electric India Pvt Ltd) Corporate Range 1, Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, No. 118, Padur Village, Thiruvelangadu Post, Wanaparthy Block, Kunnavalam V.O. No. 121, Aayakarbhavan, Thiruvallur – 631 210. Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aakcs-1901-R] Nungamabakkam, Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2159/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Komos Automotive India Pvt Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, B-10/1, Sipcot Industrial Corporate Circle 4(2), 4Th Floor, Main Building, Development Centre, Oragadam, Vaippur-A Vilalge, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Sriperumbudurtaluk, Road, Nungamabakkam, Kanchipuramdist – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacck-8859-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No.: 40/Chny/2019 &

Section 115JSection 40

2159/Chny/2017 are directed against, separate orders passed by the learned Assessing Officer dated 11.01.2017, 29.11.2017 & 27.06.2017, in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel- Bangalore, dated 22.12.2016, 14.09.2017 & 22.05.2017, respectively, and pertains to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. This bunch of four cross appeals filed

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270Section 9(1)(i)

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per directions, dated 30/03/2022, issued by the CIT (Dispute Resolution Panel-2), Mumbai-2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’) under Section 144C(5) of the Act pertaining to the Assessment Year ... 2759/Mum/2017), the Tribunal held as under: 5. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to paragraph 28 of the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel as under:- “28. Directions of the DRP 28.1 We have considered the submissions of the Assessee. The order of the ITAT is binding

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 738/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 285

SAKTIJIT DEY, VP, The captioned appeals by the assessee are against the final assessment orders passed in pursuance to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short DRP) pertaining to Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2020-21. 2. Ground No.3 in ITA No.737/Del/2023 is not pressed, hence dismissed

Ge Energy Parts Inc., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 737/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 285

SAKTIJIT DEY, VP, The captioned appeals by the assessee are against the final assessment orders passed in pursuance to directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (in short DRP) pertaining to Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2020-21. 2. Ground No.3 in ITA No.737/Del/2023 is not pressed, hence dismissed

Tagit Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1945/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

under section 143(3) r.w.s. 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 2019-20. 2. Ground No.1, being general in nature does not require adjudication. 2. In ground No.2