← 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

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Thicom Public Company Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7886/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Thicom Public Company Ltd, Central Circle-3(1)(1), C/O. Mohinder Puri & Co, International Taxation Cas, 1Ad, Vandhana, 11, New Delhi Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs4481E

For Appellant: Shri Jatinder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 9

dated 13.11.2018 was passed u/s 144C(1)/143(3) of the Act and communicated to the Assessee. The Assessee had not filed its objections before DRP as it intended to file an appeal before the Id CIT(A). Accordingly, vide the assessment order dated 18.12.2018, the draft order was confirmed

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

In the result, the appeal is party allowed

ITA 7545/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 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. 6. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the services rendered are in the nature

Alcatel Lucent India Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 15, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 366/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ankul Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

final assessment order. Assessee objected that final assessment order was passed without giving the opportunity to file objections before DRP. Based on the arguments of the assessee and facts brought on record by the Sr. Standing Counsel of the Department, Hon'ble High Court passed order dated 17.04.2021 and held ... Technical Support Services Nil 3 Interest on receivable 12,23,72,160 Total adjustment 12,23,72,160 7. Upon assessee’s objection, the DRP noted following submissions of the assessee :- “ It is submitted by the assessee that outstanding receivables are already a part of the main transaction of provision

Veolia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6011/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14 Veolia India Pvt Ltd. Acit B-1, Marble Arch, 9, Prithvi Vs Circle – 26 (1) Raj Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabcv7389R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92Section 92B

proposed was added to the income of the assessee in the draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order the assessee raised objections before DRP. However, Learned DRP upheld the adjustment. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee, firstly, submitted that once the TPO had accepted

Hannover Millano Fairs Inida P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2065/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manuj SabharwalFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Draft Assessment Order, dated 18.03.2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act. The Appellant filed objections before DRP against the aforesaid Draft Assessment Order. Vide order dated 08.12.2016, the DRP granted relief to the Appellant by directing the Assessing Officer to exclude HCCA Business

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3022/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

amounting to INR 42.38 Crores in the Draft Assessment Order invoking provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessee filed objections before DRP against the proposed disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering the details submissions filed by the Assessee

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2308/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

amounting to INR 42.38 Crores in the Draft Assessment Order invoking provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessee filed objections before DRP against the proposed disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering the details submissions filed by the Assessee

Brinks India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Brinks Arya (India ) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 7071/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Assessment Order, dated 26.12.2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed objections before DRP which were disposed off vide, order/directions dated 14.09.2017, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. The DRP rejected the objections raised

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 703/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Draft assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 254 rws 144C(1) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. The assessee filed objections before DRP on 27.01.2020. The assessee filed its written submissions before DRP on 11.01.2021 emphasizing on the binding decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years ... Draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. The assessee filed objections before DRP on 27.01.2020. The assessee filed its written submissions before DRP on 11.01.2021 seeking inclusion and exclusion of comparables inter-alia on various filters. The DRP passed its directions

Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited (Earlier Known As Ge Medical Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 344/BANG/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

Draft assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 254 rws 144C(1) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. The assessee filed objections before DRP on 27.01.2020. The assessee filed its written submissions before DRP on 11.01.2021 emphasizing on the binding decisions of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years ... Draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act dated 30.12.2019. The assessee filed objections before DRP on 27.01.2020. The assessee filed its written submissions before DRP on 11.01.2021 seeking inclusion and exclusion of comparables inter-alia on various filters. The DRP passed its directions

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

amounting to INR 42.38 Crores in the Draft Assessment Order invoking provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessee filed objections before DRP against the proposed disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering the details submissions filed by the Assessee ... disallowance of INR 3.87 Crores. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance of INR 3.87 Crores in the Draft Assessment Order. The Assessee filed objections before DRP which were accepted as the DRP deleted the said disallowance. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us on this issue

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

amounting to INR 42.38 Crores in the Draft Assessment Order invoking provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessee filed objections before DRP against the proposed disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering the details submissions filed by the Assessee ... disallowance of INR 3.87 Crores. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed disallowance of INR 3.87 Crores in the Draft Assessment Order. The Assessee filed objections before DRP which were accepted as the DRP deleted the said disallowance. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us on this issue

Juniper Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT.- CC- 2(4), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7412/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

read with Section 144(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer incorporated the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustments leading to the Appellant filing of objections before DRP which were rejected vide order, dated 07.09.2017, passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act, holding as under: “5.14.5 With reference to functional profile

Immarsat Global Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose and ground raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 626/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleinmarsat Global Limited V. Dcit (It) – 2(2)(1) Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor 14Th Floor, The Ruby Air India Building, Nariman Point 29 Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400021 Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 Pan: Aaaci6098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarati Sathe Department By : Ms. Bharati Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh
Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

Demand u/s 156 of the Act is issued accordingly. Initiate Penalty u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961” 5. Aggrieved assessee filed objections before DRP and before DRP assessee filed detailed submissions along with orders of the ITAT in its own case. Ld. DRP after considering the detailed submissions rejected ... gross receipts. The aforesaid addition proposed by the Assessing Officer was objected to by the assessee before the DRP by raising various objections. The DRP, however, affirmed the ultimate conclusion of the Assessing Officer to the effect that assessee has a PE in India. In coming to such a decision

Liebherr India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

travelling expenses to establish that the same were incurred wholly and inclusively for the purpose of business of the Appellant. The Appellant filed objections before DRP against the aforesaid proposed addition, and filed additional evidence on 26.09.2016 to support the claim of deduction of travelling and conveyance expenses. However

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C

Lakhs paid to the Director Page 7 of 16 IT(TP)A No. 695/Bang/2016 2.5 Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, assessee filed objections before DRP. 2.6 The DRP after considering the submissions by assessee, rejected the arguments of assessee and confirmed the proposed addition by the Ld.AO. On receipt

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Pmc Sierra India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objection of assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1139/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Micro Semi Storage Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Pmc-Sierra India Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd.) Circle – 4(1)(1), 19, Church Street, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aadcp6802F Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 84/Bang/2017 (In It(Tp)A No. 1139/Bang/2016) (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit & Revenue By Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2013 By The Ld.Dcit

Section 143(3)Section 92C

only its export turnover without making a corresponding reduction of the amounts from its total turnover. Since assessee did not opt for filing objections before DRP, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT

American Power Conversion (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Jindal Drilling & Inds. 412.76 29.91. 382.85 7.81% 7.25 Ltd. Arithmetic Mean 3. Aggrieved by adjustments proposed by Ld.TPO, under various segments assessee raised objections before DRP, who upheld view of Ld.TPO. 3.1 On receipt of DRP directions, Ld.AO passed final impugned assessment order, wherein following additions were made  transfer pricing ... have perused details relied upon by both sides In our considered opinion comparables alleged in additional ground arises out of records and was objected before DRP for its exclusion/inclusion. Considering inadvertent mistake on behalf of assessee in raising these grounds before this Tribunal, we allow additional ground raised now. Accordingly

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. JCIT, Hisar

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

ITA 619/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 254Section 92C

brief: Date of filing of return – 30.09.2010 Date of Order of the TPO – 02.01.2014 Date of Draft Assessment Order – 03.01.2014 Date of filing Objections before DRP – 29.04.2014 Date of Order of the DRP – 31.12.2014 Date of Assessment Order – 08.01.2015 6. Aggrieved with the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before