← 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

Hitachi, Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation.2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals being ITA no

ITA 2259/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y.: 2018-19] & [A.Y.: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi (ACIT) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is bad in law and void, being contrary to law and principles of natural justice. 2. That the Learned ACIT has erred ... Income Tax, Circle International Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi (ACIT) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) in pursuance of directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) is bad in law and void, being contrary to law and principles of natural justice. 2. That the Learned ACIT has erred

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C(1) of the ITA 5 Date of direction u/s 144C(5) of the ITA, 14-11-2014 issued by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel - III, Mumbai 6 Date of receipt of DRP direction by Ld. AO 28-11-2014 7 Date of final assessment order passed ... 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

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Frost and Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C(1) of the ITA 5 Date of direction u/s 144C(5) of the ITA, 14-11-2014 issued by Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel - III, Mumbai 6 Date of receipt of DRP direction by Ld. AO 28-11-2014 7 Date of final assessment order passed ... 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

Madhurittu Puri, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234DSection 270A(2)

under section 143(3) ITA No.3063/ Del/2022 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’) in pursuance to directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) is arbitrary, unjust and illegal on various factual and legal grounds including but not limited :o the following: a) Reference as made ... receipt of the said draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). The Ld. DRP vide order dated 09.11.2022 directed the Ld. AO to dispose of the specific objections on the valuation report of the DVO by passing a speaking order

Bushra Javed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2003/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Bushra Javed, Vs. Acit, D-112, Circle Int. Taxation 2 Lower Ground Floor, (1)(1) Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110 017 Pan Afgpj3907C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 48

assessee resulting in addition of Rs. 19,42,581/- to the income of the assessee. 3.1 The assessee raised objections with the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) to the draft assessment order. After hearing the assessee, the Ld. DRP issued directions vide order under section 144C

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 6007/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

which is to be treated as 'Fees from Included Services'. 6.3 The assessee filed objections to the draft assessment order before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). The Ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant clauses of the agreement held that

Michael Graves Design Group Inc., Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs i

ITA 7683/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 & Asstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)

which is to be treated as 'Fees from Included Services'. 6.3 The assessee filed objections to the draft assessment order before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”). The Ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee and the relevant clauses of the agreement held that

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty"). 7. Further ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the finding of the AO. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in assessee's own case

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1654/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act read with Article 12(3) of the India Singapore Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty"). 7. Further ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) upheld the finding of the AO. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in assessee's own case

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. The ACIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 18.12.2018. Thereafter, the assessee objected to the draft assessment order before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C of the Act. The DRP issued direction vide order dated 27.09.2019. After taking cognizance of the TPO and DRP's direction

Planetcast International Pte.Ltd, Singapure vs. ACIT, Circle1(1)(1) International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Vizaya Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). ITA Nos. 1831, 1832/Del/2022 & 451/Del/2023 2 ITA No. 1831/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2018-18): 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2, being general grounds, do not require specific

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

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

ITA 1763/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT DR
Section 43BSection 92C

YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Assessing Officer passed pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That, on the facts ... returned income of Rs.11,00,28,920/-. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP")I Ld. AO 1 Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.8,92,28,190/- in respect

Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

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

ITA 525/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

adjustment of INR 1,06,66,002/- qua the value of international transactions against this assessee did not file any objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer made addition of INR 1,06,66,002/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed the income

M/S. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144C(13)

short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 in AY: 2010-11 pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. The core issue arising for consideration in the present appeal is whether the project office of the assessee and Bombardier Transportation India Ltd. (BTIL) would constitute

Lewek Altair Shipping Private Limited, Kakinada vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Jitendra Singh, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115VSection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92E

r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act on 18/3/2021. Aggrieved by the draft order, the assessee filed a petition before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] raising its objections for the draft order. The Ld. DRP upheld the adjustment to the extent of Rs. 1,97,62,895/- with respect

Teejay India Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Cirlce 3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 155/VIZ/2022[22018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154 & 155/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18 & 2018-19)

/The Revenue – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), 2. Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (ii) The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, KendriyaSadan, 4th Floor, C-Wing, Bengaluru-560034. आयकरआयु"त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. (ii) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

Teejay India Pvt Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 154/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.154 & 155/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2017-18 & 2018-19)

/The Revenue – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), 2. Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (ii) The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, KendriyaSadan, 4th Floor, C-Wing, Bengaluru-560034. आयकरआयु"त (अपील)/ The Commissioner of Income Tax 4. (ii) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

Buro Happold Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1006/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleburo Happold Limited V. Acit (International Tax) C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp Circle – 1(3)(2) Urmi Estate – Tower A, 20Th Floor Room No. 1810, 18Th Floor 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan: Aabcb9239Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 90(2)

Fees for technical services (FTS) 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel") and DCIT have erred in considering income from consulting and engineering services amounting to INR 1,04,76,328/- as Fees for technical services ... Fees for technical services (FTS) 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel') and DCIT have erred in considering management fees & common cost recharge amounting to INR 8.85,47,006/- as Royalty and Fees for technical services

Shri. Bhupendra Sitapchand Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO, It, Ward- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is 10

ITA 2052/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri. Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Shri. Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 50C

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-19, as per directions issued by CIT(Dispute Resolution Panel -1, Mumbai- 1 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRP’) under section 144C(5) of the Act. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal ... Assessment Year 2018-19 1. Objection against confirming addition of Rs. 41,55,300/- u/s. 50C of the Act 1.1 The Dispute Resolution Panel, hereinafter referred to as the "DRP". has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,55,300/- on account of Section

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

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