← 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

Boeing India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 4337/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5422/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Express Freight Consortium, C-4, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Dept, Civic Centre,Pratyakshar Bhawan, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaae8440R अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Advocate & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5407/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 India Seah Precision Metal Prvate Limited, A-39, Sector-80, Phase-Ii, Noida,Uttarpradesh. Pan No.Aabch2680P बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5376/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Oriental Consultants India Private Limited, 10A-16, Ground Floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aabco8528P बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Range-44, C.R. Building, Delhi. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Kashish Gupta, Ar, Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ar & Shri Anil Kumar, Advocate 1

ITA Nos. 5422/D/24, 5407/24, 5376/D/24, 5342/D/24, 5371/D/24, 5340/D/24, 4407/D/24, 4337/D/24, 3907/D/24 89862/D/19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH

Schineler India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcitrg 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Schindler India Pvt Ltd Dcit Schindler House, Main Street, Range 15(3) (2) Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400076 (Pan: Aaecs1548J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal & Ms. Riddhi Maru, Cas Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2021-22/1040015716(1) Dated 22.02.2022 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2021-22/1039079646(1), Dated 25.01.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “Ground I. Legal Grounds

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal and Ms. Riddhi Maru, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the L.d. Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") and the Ld. AO (following the directions of the DRP) erred in proposing to disallow the payments made by the Appellant on account of royalty, management recharge and IT support & SAP systems recharge services while ... computing total income of the Appellant. 1.2 The Ld. DRP and the Ld. AO (following the directions of the DRP) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: a. the payment made by the Appellant towards royalty, management recharge and IT support & SAP systems recharge services are wholly