← All Phrases

“objections before DRP”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C239 judgments

The decision most relied on for objections before DRP is Asian Paints v. DCIT, Mumbai (48 Taxmann.com 65), cited in 11 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on objections before DRP

Asian Paints v. DCIT, Mumbai
48 Taxmann.com 65 · Reported
11
citing judgments

The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) should entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if it's presented as an objection, as long as it affects the taxability. This principle is established by following decisions of the ITAT and the Gujarat High Court.

Judgments citing objections before DRP

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hsbc Bank Plc, London

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

ITA 1538/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 192

India) Private Limited [for short ‘HSDI’]. In response, the Assessee filed Letter, dated 26/09/2022, stating that the Assessee did not wish to file objections before DRP. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act on 11/10/2022

Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DDIT/ADIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result, the grounds

ITA 711/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasian Honda Motor Co. Vs. Dcit, Ddit/Adit Ltd., No.14, Sarasin (International Tax) Building, Surasak Road, Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Khwaeng, Silom Khet Aayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Bangrak, Bangkok Sector 24, Gautam Budh Metropolis, Nagar, Noida, Thailand, 10500 Uttar Pradesh – 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaica2531P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

receipt and being aggrieved by the aforesaid draft order under Section 144C(1) of the Act, appellant filed his objections before DRP. DRP after considering the nature of services rendered, considers it appropriate to cover services rendered by appellant to HMSI under Article 22 of the DTAA, as according

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3404/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Pjsc Dcit (International Taxation)- Wework India Management Private 1(1)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No. 517, Limited Vs. 2Nd Floor, Express Towers, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ranath Goenka Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 4216 B (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(3)

entire interest income earned by the assessee from the Indian customers. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before DRP on various grounds. The assessee also took an alternative plea that in terms with section 115A(1)(a)(iiaa) r.w.s. 194LC of the Act, interest earned

Sohan Lal Singla, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds

ITA 711/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraasian Honda Motor Co. Vs. Dcit, Ddit/Adit Ltd., No.14, Sarasin (International Tax) Building, Surasak Road, Room No. 602, 6Th Floor, Khwaeng, Silom Khet Aayakar Bhawan, A-2D, Bangrak, Bangkok Sector 24, Gautam Budh Metropolis, Nagar, Noida, Thailand, 10500 Uttar Pradesh – 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaica2531P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Kamal Sawhney, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

receipt and being aggrieved by the aforesaid draft order under Section 144C(1) of the Act, appellant filed his objections before DRP. DRP after considering the nature of services rendered, considers it appropriate to cover services rendered by appellant to HMSI under Article 22 of the DTAA, as according

Uday Ramesh Nayak, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle - Int. Taxation, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Sanjay K. Lal, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 271ASection 69

addition of Rs. 2,16,06,693/- being unexplained investment in property under Section 69 of the Act. 5. The assessee filed objections before DRP and produced additional evidences in the form of bank statement of ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank loan statement and copy of cheques paid to the developer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai vs. Ms Va Tech Wabag Limited, Chennai

ITA 2256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

holding the same as if for technical services and added back to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred objections before DRP. 23. The DRP accepted the objections of the assessee and reverse the finding of the A.O by observing in Para 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 as under

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2248/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, 'Wabag House” No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G] Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.2256, 2257 & 2258/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Income Tax, 'Wabag House” Central Circle 3(2) No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Chennai. S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai 600 117 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 2

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

holding the same as if for technical services and added back to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred objections before DRP. 23. The DRP accepted the objections of the assessee and reverse the finding of the A.O by observing in Para 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 as under

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2247/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

holding the same as if for technical services and added back to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred objections before DRP. 23. The DRP accepted the objections of the assessee and reverse the finding of the A.O by observing in Para 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 as under

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2246/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2246, 2247 & 2248/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-2021) M/S. Va Tech Wabag Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Wabag House’’ Income Tax, No.17, 200 Feet Redial Road, Central Circle 3(2) S. Kolathur (Near Kamakshi Hospital) Chennai. Chennai 600 117 [Pan: Aabcv 0225G]

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, IRS, JCIT

holding the same as if for technical services and added back to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred objections before DRP. 23. The DRP accepted the objections of the assessee and reverse the finding of the A.O by observing in Para 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 as under

Vvf (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4840/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2Section 92B

draft assessment order on 20/07/2024 by making proposed additions in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the filed objections before DRP. 4. DRP upheld the action of aggregating international transactions by the Ld.TPO. The DRP also upheld comparables selected by the Ld.TPO, without analyzing

Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1741/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68Section 69C

proposing an assessment of total income of Rs. 80,24,216/-. Aggrieved with the proposed variation, the appellant assessee filed objections before DRP-2 Mumbai on 28.06.2023. the action of assessing officer in terms of rejection of exempt gains and assessment of sales credits u/s. 68 and commission expenditure

Qubix Business Park Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1994/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

Bank of India(SBI). Ld.TPO compared rate of interest charged by SBI which was `8.55% and proposed the Transfer Pricing Adjustment. Assessee filed objections before DRP. DRP upheld the benchmarking done by the TPO. However, DRP observed that there was arithmetical error while considering the one year MCLR Rate

Chiara Nath, Delhi vs. DCIT - Circle Int .Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1924/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrachiara Nath Vs. Dcit 7, Maulseri House, Circle – Int. Tax 2(2)(2), Kapashera Estate New Delhi Delhi – 110 037 Pan : Aafpn 8540 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. R. Sahu, C.A. & Shri Akhil Mangla, C.A. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)

found not acceptable and additions of Rs.2,26,47,640/- & Rs.42,80,009/- were made vide draft assessment order dated 29.05.2023. Assessee preferred objections before DRP which were decided by order dated 19.02.2024. In compliance of direction of DRP, New Delhi, learned AO passed final assessment order dated

Javith Anver Basha, Bangalore vs. The ACIT, Circle-Intl. Taxn., Vadodara

In the result, the matter is restored to the file of DRP for carrying out the above directions

ITA 1406/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri B. Chhataraj, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT DR
Section 144C(2)Section 147

copy of the email addressed to DRP for our consideration. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the last date of filing the objections before DRP was 09.04.2024 and the assessee had filed it’s objections before DRP on this very date itself i.e. 09.04.2024 by way of email

Ebro India Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 68

same get fulfilled when draft notice is issued to the assessee u/s 144 C (1) and providing assessee an opportunity to file objections before DRP, so that a proper opportunity is afforded before finalization of final assessment order or crystallization of demand by DRP also, which in this case

Akash, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer (It), Ward-1, Pune

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

ITA 1535/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

final assessment order, in para 12 it is mentioned by the Assessing Officer that since assessee has not filed objections before DRP, the final assessment order is passed. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 1.1 Grounds of appeal : “1. The Honourable DRP has allegedly

Borgwarner Emissions Systems India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2015/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

adjustment of the abovesaid amount was proposed, in addition to initiation of penalty proceedings. 6. Against the proposed adjustment, the assessee submitted objections before DRP. Vide order dated 7.6.2022, DRP upheld action on account of Arm’s Length Price adjustment to the tune of Rs.9,09,41,198/-. Thereafter ... second one pertains to BSS. No doubt, these copies have been represented to be sample invoices, but while dealing with the objections, Ld. DRP nowhere recorded any observation so as to reject said invoices. In the first invoice, in the column meant for description, there is mention of “2012 Engineering

Ganesan Kannan, Thoothukudi vs. Iti, International Taxation Ward, Thoothukudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(8)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

time available to the Assessing Officer for passing final assessment order u/s.153 : 12 months Less: i. Time available to eligible assessee for filing objections before DRP u/s.144C : 1 month ii. Time available to DRP for issuing directions u/s.144C(12) : 9 months iii. Time available to Assessing Officer for passing final

Ares Diversified, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2372/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

order is void. 3.1 Ld. DR has however, countered the submissions with proposition, that as assessee had informed the AO, of filing the objections before DRP, and same were not filed in time, then matter may be restored to the files of AO, to decided afresh. 4. Now, a perusal

Ares Diversified, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Intl. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 2371/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 3

order is void. 3.1 Ld. DR has however, countered the submissions with proposition, that as assessee had informed the AO, of filing the objections before DRP, and same were not filed in time, then matter may be restored to the files of AO, to decided afresh. 4. Now, a perusal