“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

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

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

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

section 144C do not provide for Page 27 of 86 IT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022 condonation of delay in filing of objections before DRP, in the following cases, it is held that assessee cannot file DRP objections belatedly: • DCIT vs. Saint Gobain India

Satish Babu Kannan, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 370/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195

Taxable Income : Rs.2,79,11,567/- 3.2 Aggrieved against the draft assessment order u/s.144 of the Act, the assessee moved to DRP raising objections. The DRP noted that the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 was served on assessee on 24.03.2022 but assessee filed objections on 29.04.2022, which is beyond the prescribed ... appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee admitted that there is a delay of 5 days in filing objections before DRP and DRP dismissed the objections on the ground that objections were not filed within 30 days time limit. The ld.counsel stated that the draft

Ashwin Kapur, Delhi vs. ACIT-Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.474/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Ashwin Kapur Acit D-4/4101, Vasant Kunj, Vs. Circle (Int. Tax) 2(1)(2) South West, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aqapk9804E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 48

Accordingly, he proposed an addition of Rs.20,04,015/- being indexed cost of renovation cost for which the assessee filed its objections before DRP. 3. In the course of proceedings before DRP the assessee submitted that all the payments for purchase of flat were made through assessee’s bank account

M/S. Malaysian Airline System Berhad, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1012/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1012/Del/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Malaysian Airline System Berhad Dcit 10Th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, Vs. (International 28, Barakhamba Road, Taxation), Circle 2(2)(1), 4Th Floor, New Delhi. Block E-2, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacm5033C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)

where the A,0« has given effect to the findings of the Hon’ble DM9 as discussed above.” 6. The assessee filed objections before DRP and the DRP considering the submissions of the assessee directed the AO to bring the payments received by the assessee to tax on gross basis

Inteva Products Netherlands B.V., Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), International Taxtion, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 765/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: A. R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vii)

consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. I.T.A. No. 765/Del/2023 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered

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

draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not received any intimation either (a) acceptance of the variations or (b) filing of objections before DRP by the assessee within the stipulated period of 30 days namely (on or before 15.12.2017). Therefore the Assessing Officer as per Section 144C(3) passed ... final assessment order on 19.12.2017 and served the same to the assessee on 21.12.2017. 4. However the assessee filed its objection before DRP on 18.12.2017 (Monday) which is the next working day (since 16.12.2017 and 17.12.2017 happen to be Saturday and Sunday- which are declared holidays). The assessee further claimed

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 769/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 43(1)

draft assessment order. disallowed in the draft assessment order. Against the draft Against the draft assessment order, the assessment order, the assessee filed objections before DRP. DR filed objections before DRP. DRP also rejected the Appellant's claim vide directions dated 13th also rejected the Appellant's claim vide directions

Preity Zinta, Mumbai vs. Intl. Tax Ward (4)(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 521/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 68

Section 144C of the Act proposing an addition of INR 10,84,27,700/- under Section 68 of the Act. The Appellant filed objections before DRP challenging the proposed addition of INR 10,84,27,700/- under Section 68 of the Act as well as reopening of the assessment proceedings

Rockwell Automation Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1638/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadrockwell Automation India Private Acit, Circle 19(1), Limited, Vs. Delhi. 131, Functional Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Goswami, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Delhi passed a draft order u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.09.2021. Aggrieved with the draft order, the assessee filed objections before DRP-2, Delhi against draft order. DRP-2, Delhi after detailed hearing pronounced its judgement on 29.04.2022 and had issued certain direction in the case

Standard Chartered Investments & Loan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

being excess depreciation claimed by the Appellant. 5. Against the Draft Assessment Order, dated 14/02/2013, the Appellant filed objections before DRP which were disposed of vide order dated 01/11/2013. As per the direction of DRP, transfer pricing adjustment of INR 52,548/- in respect of interest received from SCB India

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

personnel's recorded during the survey conducted u/s 133A. In para No. 9 it has been mentioned that the assessee has filed objections before DRP on the issue of establishing the PE in India and Hon'ble DRP has rejected the objection of the assessee and upheld the decision

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7894/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

Rajesh Somnay, Mumbai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed

ITA 533/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 54

addition of INR 88,40,429/- in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 26.03.2022, passed under Section 147 of the Act. The Appellant filed objections before DRP against the Draft 6. Assessment Order which were rejected, vide order, dated 26.12.2022. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made addition

Deepali Kiran Potnis, Kalyan vs. ITO. Int. Tax, Ward-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

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

144C(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 was served on the assessee on 17-09-2021. The assessee preferred not to file objections before DRP. The assessee has not filed any as visible under e processing in respect of draft order passed on 17-09-2021. As the assessee ... brought anything on record regarding filing of objections before DRP and not filed any reply, the assessment order is passed as under:-….” (c) On the contrary, the assessee has actually filed objections before Ld DRP on 13-10-2021. (d) It is the submission of the assessee that

Ingram Micro India Pvt.Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT(Osdii), Cr-7 (Now DCIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

ITA 2268/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

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

fixed assets during the relevant previous year holding that the Appellant had failed to produced relevant bills/invoices for verification. 4.2. The Appellant filed objections before DRP on this issue. However, the DRP declined to grant relief and therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, 28/01/2014, incorporating

Ingram Micro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 1980/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri M.M. GolvalaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

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

Inteva Product Natherlands Bv, Maharashtra vs. ACIT Circle Int. Taxation-2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 822/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 270

consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered are in the nature

Inteva Products Netherlands Bv, Netherland vs. ACIT Circle-Iternational Taxation -2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 119/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 270

consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered are in the nature

Inteva Products Netherlands Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7964/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 270

consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered are in the nature

Inteva Products Netherlands Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 7963/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 270

consultancy services. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount at the hands of the assessee. Against the draft assessment order, assessee raised objections before DRP. However, learned DRP rejected the objection. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered are in the nature