“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

Little Fairy Ltd, Nicosia vs. ACIT, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1511/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava

assessee but this amendment may take effect from 01.04.2020. The relevant part of the Finance Bills reads as under: “Amendment in Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Section 144C of the Act provides that in case of certain eligible assessees, viz., foreign companies and any person in whose case transfer pricing adjustments

Saksham, Bilaspur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, all the captioned appeals i

ITA 102/RPR/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.100 & 101/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shrishti Institute Of Medical Science & Research Centre, Pandey Complex Near Petrol Pump, Niharika, Korba-495677 (C.G.). Pan : Aacas5201L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.102/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 Saksham Mig-1 Ameri Sagar Dwip, Sagar Dwip Ameri, Bilashpur-495001(C.G.). Pan : Aaeas6801Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 154Section 158B

under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 or 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; †or (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Korba vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, all the captioned appeals i

ITA 101/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 154Section 158B

Shrishti Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Korba vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, all the captioned appeals i

ITA 100/RPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 115VSection 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 154Section 158B

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Surat

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

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

draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act on 10 February 2014, against which, the assessee fled objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel on 11 March 2014. The Dispute Resolution Panel, however, upheld the finding of the TPO. 4. The assessee, in the meantime, had shifted its registered

Telefonica Uk Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Tax), Range-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 772/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Us On Merits Is With Regard To Ground No.11-19 Which Releates To Cellular Roaming Charges & Treating The Amount Of Rs.7,45,72,450/- Taxable Under 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act & Also As Per India-Uk Dtaa Under Article 13(3). At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Issue Stands Covered In The Case Of M/S. Telefonica Depreciation Espana Sa Vs. Cit In Ita No.2657/Bang/2019, 180/Bang/2022& 817/Bang/2022 For The A.Yrs. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 3. The Brief Facts Are That Assessee, I.E., Telefonica Uk Ltd Is A Company Incorporated Under The Laws Of United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Uk) & Is A Tax Resident Of Uk. The Assessee Is A Non-Resident Telecommunication Service Provider, Primarily Engaged In The Business Of Providing Mobile & Broadband Services Along With Various Other Ancillary Services Such As Text, Media Messaging, Games, Music, Video & Data Connections In The United Kingdom.

Section 144Section 148

royalty under the Act as well as India-UK DTAA. 11. The Assessee challenged the draft assessment order by filing objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") on 29 April 2022. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, the DRP passed an order dated 28 December 2022 and like

Telefonica Uk Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int Tax), Range-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 771/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Section 144Section 148

Gammon India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 7(2)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1440/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blem/S. Gammon India Ltd V. Dcit-Central Circle 7(2) 3Rd Floor, Plot No. 3/8 Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Hamilton House, J.N. Heredia Marg Aayakar Bhavan Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle 7(2) V. M/S. Gammon India Ltd Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 1, Gammon House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Veer Savarkar Marg Mumbai- 400020 Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 Pan: Aaacg3821A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92B(1)

option either to file his acceptance of the variation of the assessment or file his objection to any such variation with the Dispute Resolution Panel and also the Assessing Officer. Sub-section (5) of section 144C of the Act provides that if any objections are raised by the assessee before ... Dispute Resolution Panel, the Panel is empowered to issue such direction as it thinks fit for the guidance of the Assessing Officer after considering various details provided in Clauses (A) to (G) thereof. Sub- section (13) of section 144C of the Act provides that upon receipt of directions issued under

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Gammon India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2990/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Section 92B(1)

Operadora Comercial De Desarrollo S.A. De C.V., Mexico vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2395/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 . Operadora Commercial De Vs. Dcit, Desarrollo S.A. De C.V. International Taxation, Mexico, Circle-2(2)(2), C/O- Bhatia & Bhatia, New Delhi Chartered Accountants, First Floor, 81, Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aabco9252E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 50Section 90(2)

144C(13) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). AY: 2017-18 2. Registry has pointed out delay of 52 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has furnished letter dated

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 840/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bnp Paribas V. Acit (International Taxation) 1 North Avenue, Maker Maxity Circle – 1(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 1810A, 18Th Floor Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacb4868Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against final Assessment Order and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (DRP-1), Mumbai-3 [hereinafter in short “Ld.DRP”] dated M/s. BNP Paribas 31.12.2022 for the A.Y.2015-16 passed u/s. 144C(5) of Income

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 792/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(14)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order incorporating the said addition. Aggrieved, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP rejected the objections from the assessee and confirmed the TP adjustment. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order pursuant to the directions

Lionbridge Technologies Llc (Formerly Known As Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.), Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Tax. 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1905/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 . Lionbridge Technologies Llc Vs. Acit, (Formerly Known As Lionbridge Circle International Tax - Technologies, Inc.), 2(2)(1), 890, Winter Street – Suite 225, New Delhi Waltham, Ma – 02451, Usa Pan :Aaecl2198K (Appellant) (Respondent)

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 only dispute arising in the present appeal relates to addition of reimbursement of expenses from the India subsidiaries as royalty

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

under-" 131(1) The Assessing Officer Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Joint Commissioner. Commissioner (Appeals), Chief Commissioner or Commissioner and the Dispute Resolution Panel referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (15) of section 144C shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested

M/S. Kandla Energy and Chemicals Ltd., Village Devaliya, Tal. Anjar(Kutch) vs. Add. CIT, Gandhidham Range, Gandhidham(Kutch)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 399/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92CSection 92E

/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, as against the draft assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income ... file his acceptance of the variations to the Assessing Officer, or (b) file his objections, if any,to such variations with- (i) The Dispute Resolution Panel: and I.T.A No. 399/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 Kandla Energy & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ii) The Assessing Officer. 3.2. After passing

M/S Kepco Plant Service & Engineering Co Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation)- 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 886/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rahul YadavFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], as per directions, dated 28/12/2022, issued by the CIT (Dispute Resolution Panel-1), Mumbai-1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’) under Section 144C(5) of the Act pertaining to the Assessment Year ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"), assessing the total income of the Appellant for the subject assessment year at INR 32,57,97,260, is bad in law and deserves

Kec International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2512/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blekec International Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 5(2)(1) 463 Rpg House Room No. 571, 5Th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhawan Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aacck5599H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 234BSection 80JSection 90

RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final Assessment Order and directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (DRP-1), Mumbai-1 [hereinafter in short KEC International Limited “Ld.DRP”] dated 27.06.2022 for the A.Y.2018-19 passed u/s. 144C

Malco Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 115J

Assessing Officer ("AO") taking into consideration the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO"), and the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") (collectively referred to as "Lower Authorities"), erred in law, in assessing the gross total income of the Appellant at Rs 145,63,51,016/- under normal ... book profit under section 115JB of the Actwas computed at ₹155,43,34,549/–. 20. Assessee objected to the same before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel. The learned Dispute Resolution Panel with respect to the objection a) related to the transfer pricing adjustment, held that the learned TPO is correct

DCIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2077/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5 Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 Nd Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri

Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C

learned assessing officer pursuant to the order of the learned transfer pricing officer and subject to the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel dated 12/11/2014. 03. Assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal:- Non-Transfer Pricing Issues ... book profit was also enhanced by disallowance under section 14 A of the act. 15. Assessee preferred an objection before the learned dispute resolution panel, directions were passed under section 144C (5) of the act on 12/11/2014. On the ground of the judicial consistency, the dispute resolution panel directed

The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA number 1597/M/2018) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1597/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narfendrakumar Choudhary , Jm & & The Great Eastern Shipping Co. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Range-5(3), Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Vs. Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1565C The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Tax, Ltd. Range-5(3), Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp Vs. Esplanade House, 2 N D Floor, Room No.525B, 5Th Floor, M.K. Marg, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar , Shri Falee HFor Respondent: Shri

Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 144C