← All Phrases

“directions of the DRP”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C1,202 judgments

The decision most relied on for directions of the DRP is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd. (445 ITR 537), cited in 269 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on directions of the DRP

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).

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP
369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

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.

Capital IQ Information Systems India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
32 Taxmann.com 21 · 2013 · ITAT
44
citing judgments

A change in depreciation policy impacts an entity's profitability, which is a key factor in assessing its suitability as a comparable company for transfer pricing analysis.

Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. v. ACIT (International Taxation)
457 ITR 161 · 2023 · High Court
30
citing judgments

The limitation period for passing an assessment order under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act prevails over the specific time restriction for passing a final order under Section 144C(13).

Software Paradigms Infotech (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
89 Taxmann.com 339 · 2018 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

An assessment order passed without giving effect to the binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(10) within the stipulated time under section 144C(13) is null and void and must be set aside.

Bombay and Delhi High Courts in Vodafone Idea Limited v. Central Processing Centre
459 ITR 413 · 2023 · High Court
15
citing judgments

When determining the date of receipt of Directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of limitation, the date of uploading the DRP's directions is considered the date of receipt, even if the AO claims to have received it later through email. This interpretation prevents parties from exploiting a later date to their advantage and adheres to a singular, unambiguous approach to reckoning limitation.

Trib.). 14. Bramhacorp Hotels & Resorts Ltd. v. DDIT
103 Taxmann.com 344 · 2019 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must comply with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) when passing final assessment orders, and failure to do so may warrant setting aside the assessment with a direction for compliance.

Judgments citing directions of the DRP

Trend Micro Australia Proprietary Limited, Australia vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, assessment order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2730/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं. 2730/धिल्ली/2023 (नि.व. 2020-21) Trend Micro Australia Proprietary Ltd., Level-15, 1-Pacific Highway North, Sydney Nsw 2060, Australia 2060 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaect-4864-E बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reema Grewal, Chartered Accountant & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Advocate प्रनिवादीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 20/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate, Ms. Reema GrewalFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)

Hyundai Rotem Company in ITA 304/2025 decided on 29.10.2025 to contend that even as per stand of the Department, as soon as, directions of the DRP are uploaded on ITBA portal, the same is visible to the AO. 4. Per contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal, representing the department submits that

Dcm Shriram Industris Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

department against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in assessment year 2015-16. That being the factual position, in terms with the direction of learned DRP no addition 8 can be made. Accordingly, we delete the additions in both the assessment years.” 7. The ld. AR pointed out that while adjudicating ... strongly contented by the ld. AR that while completing the final assessment, the Assessing Officer / Transfer pricing officer has violated the said binding directions of the DRP by retaining the above adjustment in the TPO appeal giving effect order as well as in the final assessment order

Sercel Sa, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DDN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)

DRP. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the learned DRP sustained the additions made by the assessing officer. Based on the directions of the DRP, the final assessment order was passed. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds :- “1. That

Merit Data and Technology Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 4(1) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 958/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Chny/2026 & Sa No.74/Chny/2026 (Arises In Ita No.958/Chny/2026) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S. Merit Data & Technology Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-4(1), Sp 52, 3Rd Street, Ambattur Industrial Chennai. Estate S.O., Ambattur, Tiruvallur – 600 058. Pan: Aadcl 8191M

For Appellant: Mr. K. Prasanna, C.A )*For Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)

assessee filed its objections before the DRP against the draft assessment order passed by the A.O incorporating the TP adjustment. Based on the directions of the DRP, the TPO passed an order giving effect whereby the TP adjustment was increased to Rs.8,60,29,525/-. The assessee is in appeal ... before the Tribunal against the final assessment order passed by the A.O pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. The facts pertaining to the impugned TP adjustment is that in the TP study, the assessee has used transaction net margin method as the most appropriate method. The assessee

Zarah Rafique Malik, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5159/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Hon’Blezarah Rafique Malik Income Tax Officer, (Int.Tax) B/1703, Vivarea Condominium, Ward- 3(2)(1), Mumbai Vs. Sane Guruji Marg, Jacob Circle, Mahalaxmi East Mumbai – 400 011 Pan : Adcpm8960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal, Adv. & Shri Oom KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153(1)

prohibetur et per obliquum: "When anything is prohibited directly (In hands of the COMPANY), it is also prohibited indirectly (to the shareholder)." 6.4. Directions of the DRP: In view of above discussion, Panel is of considered view that no adjustment is required in AO's order on this account

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)- 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Marriott International Inc, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 34/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Krishna KumarFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Poddar, Shri Karan Jain
Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

assessment order. In case the objections are filed before the DRP, the DRP shall issue the directions and it is only after the directions of the DRP that the AO shall pass the final assessment order after giving effect to the directions of the DRP. 11. In the instant case

Sridharan Shanmugam, Salem vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. C.Vatchala, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144(7)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 69Section 69A

made by the assessing officer u/s 69A. Hence, objection of the assessee is hereby rejected.” Pursuant to the Directions of the DRP, the AO passed a final assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act dated 30.12.2024 by confirming the addition of Rs.75.00 Lakhs. 4. Aggrieved ... material available on record, including the paper book filed by the assessee, and carefully considered the orders of the AO and the directions of the DRP along with the paper book filed and the case laws relied upon. The sole issue involved in this appeal is whether the addition

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1225/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

provisions of section 144C of the Act, the A.O will get one month time from the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP was received and in the present case, the Ld. DRP has issued directions dated 30/12/2024 and the A.O has passed the final assessment

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1224/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

provisions of section 144C of the Act, the A.O will get one month time from the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP was received and in the present case, the Ld. DRP has issued directions dated 30/12/2024 and the A.O has passed the final assessment

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1223/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 153BSection 153CSection 69

provisions of section 144C of the Act, the A.O will get one month time from the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP was received and in the present case, the Ld. DRP has issued directions dated 30/12/2024 and the A.O has passed the final assessment

Samiuddin Aslam, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1222/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1222 To 1225/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2019-20) Shri Samiudedin Aslam Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Pan: Ckvpa7727F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per. Manjunatha, G. A.M. These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The A. O Under Section 153C R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, All Dated 17/01/2025, For The Assessment. Years 2016-17 To 2019- 20 Respectively. The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds For All The Four Assessment Years. Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

provisions of section 144C of the Act, the A.O will get one month time from the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP was received and in the present case, the Ld. DRP has issued directions dated 30/12/2024 and the A.O has passed the final assessment

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. and whether TDS was applicable thereon. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. TPO did not follow the directions of the DRP in respect of Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. and disallowed the claim of the assessee at the threshold. 13.1 In respect

Movate Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2467/CHNY/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘the Act’) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2020-21 pursuant to directions of the DRP-2, Bengaluru issued u/s.144C(5) of the Act dated 14.06.2024. 2. Though the assessee raised multiple grounds in the memo of appeal, only

Honda Trading Corporation India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Dc/ACIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi / Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

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

ITA 5286/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 92C

appear to be in accordance with law. 2. Impugned order is bad in law as it is based in invalid and unlawful directions of Ld. DRP, contrary to section 144 C(8). 1.2 In view of the discussion made later in this order, the above grounds of appeal become academic ... dated 31/10/2023, which was reduced to Rs. 11,57,97,707/- vide order dated 14/10/2024 while giving effect to the direction of the DRP u/s 144C of the Act dated 25.09.2024. 3.3 Aggrieved with the said adjustment the assessee is in appeal before us, on the following grounds of appeal

Osg (India) Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 4925/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144B

said order, the assessee filed its objection before the DRP. The Ld. DRP agreed with the finding of the TPO and the relevant directions of the DRP are reproduced as under: “4.2.9 As stated at the outset there are two issues in the analysis of transfer pricing for intra-group

Compass India Support Services Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

ITA 511/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

DRP on this issue in the AY 2017-18 mutatis mutandis." (emphasis supplied by us) 17. The TPO after considering the above directions of the DRP in the OGE dated 21.04.2022 recalculated the Median at 20.02 as against 21.53 in the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act dated

Compass India Support Services Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

ITA 1383/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, H: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Posco India Processing Center Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO), Circle 3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 6022/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.6022/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) Posco India Processing Centre P. Ltd., Unit No.512, 5Th Floor, Tower-A, Park Centra Building, Sector-30, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aafcp-0211-N बिाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Circle 3(1), Area Code-Nwr, Ao Type-C, Range Code-107, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Ao Number-1, Gurgaon, Haryana122016 आअसं.5454/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) Intertek India P. Ltd., E-20 Block B-1, Mathura Road, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Area, New Delhi 110044 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaaci-6890-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 10(1), Delhi Sa No.348/Del/2025 In Ita No. 5454/Del/2024(A.Y 2021-22) Intertek India P. Ltd., E-20 Block B-1, Mathura Road, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Area, New Delhi 110044 ...... आवेदक/Applicant Pan: Aaaci-6890-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 10(1), Delhi

For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

pass a final order of assessment as he has to do so within one month from the end of the month when the directions of the DRP are received by him, even without hearing the assessee concerned. 18. Barring this, I find nothing in the language of sections 144C

Groupe Seb India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 6021/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.5984/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) Tupperware India P. Ltd., 204-06, Tolstoy House, 15, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaact-3770-D बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 25(1), Cr Building, Delhi 110002 आअसं.6021/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) Groupe Seb India P. Ltd. C-67, 3Rd Floor, Dda Sheds, Okhla Phase-1, Delhi 110020 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aagcm-6857-L बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Osd) ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Cr Building, Delhi 110002 आअसं.6047/धिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22) It (Tp)A No. 6047/Del/2024(A.Y 2021-22) Indo British Garments P. Ltd., C-16 Community Centre, Behind Janak Place, Delhi 110058 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaaci-7874-B बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Cr Building, Ip Estate, Delhi 110002

For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

pass a final order of assessment as he has to do so within one month from the end of the month when the directions of the DRP are received by him, even without hearing the assessee concerned. 18. Barring this, I find nothing in the language of sections 144C

Tupperware India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA 5984/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthitupperware India P. Ltd., आअसं.5984/दिल्ली/2024(नि.व. 2021-22)

For Respondent: Ms. Anju Goel, Chartered Accountant (Virtual)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण दिल्ली पीठ "आई", दिल्ली श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष