← 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

Sondex Wireline Ltd, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Intl Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1959/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1959/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2022-23) Sondex Wireline Ltd., Cody Technology Park, Builing X107, Range Road, Farnborough, Foreign, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant United Kingdom Gu14Ofg Pan Aaqcs-9766E बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), Civic Centre, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate With S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya Shankar Bajpai (Through Vc) & Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit(Dr) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Sohum Dua, Abhudaya ShankarFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

facts and submissions of the assessee confirmed findings of the AO. Thus, the Final Assessment Order was passed in accordance with the directions of the DRP. 5.1. The ld. Counsel submitted that except for making bald observation that the assessee has deemed PE in India, no reason has been given ... attribution to the India PE. 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the impugned assessment order and directions of the DRP. The fact that the assessee is engaged in off shore supply of equipment and standard software is not disputed by the Revenue. Further

M/S. Gulbrandsen Technologes (India) Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 160/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 160/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S Gulbrandsen Additional/Joint/Deputy/ बनाम/ Technologies (India) Private Assistant Commissioner Of V/S. Limited Income Tax/Income-Tax 405, Synergy Square, Krishna Officer- Industrial Estate, Gowra, National Faceless Assessment Vadodara 390 016 Centre, Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 9006 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (") यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)

transaction itself, and that the same is prescribed for FERA/FEMA purposes. The Assessing Officer (AO) as per the directions of the DRP, considered the LIBOR for the FY 2017-18 as bench marking rate at 5.23% and held that the assessee paid excessive interest to its Associate Enterprises

Dileep Kumar Dwivedi, United States vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

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

ITA 347/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Dileep Kumar Dwivedi, Vs. Acit, 6012, Carrington Green Place, Ward 1(2)(2), Glen Allen Civic Centre, Virginia, Delhi. Usa - 999999. Pan: Bzcpc4788E

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

payment during the year was made in sum of Rs.33,47,450/-. The ld. AO passed the impugned order ignoring the directions of the DRP. 7. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Ld. AO. 8. From examination of the record in the light ... United States. The assessee never provided any service in India in the AY 2015- 16. The ld. AO despite referring to the directions of the DRP regarding deletion, made additions of Rs.54,48,060/- or Rs.33,47,450/- for the reason that requisite documents did not prove the contention

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 917/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

Section 153 B is for a limited purpose to ensure that dehors larger time is available, an order based on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the month of receipt of such directions. The section and the sub-section have ... nature of restricting the time period, within which, the Assessing Officer is required to pass the Final Assessment Order after the Directions of the DRP and not enlarging the limitation provided u/sec.153 of the Act. 10. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

u/sec.144C(13) is only a restriction on the Assessing Officer to pass the final order within one month from the receipt of the Directions of the DRP and not enlarging the limitation which is provided u/sec.153 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court has held that provisions u/sec.144C ... Section 153 B is for a limited purpose to ensure that dehors larger time is available, an order based on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the month of receipt of such directions. The section and the sub-section have

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Puducherry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

assessment as per section 144C(13) of the Act, i.e. within one month from the end of the month of receipt of the directions of the DRP. It is the case of assessee that the directions of the DRP was dated 21.09.2024 and hence, the limitation for passing the final ... order to adjudicate this legal issue, we note that following facts are not disputed i.e. the AO received the directions of the DRP on 21.09.2024 [as noted from Page No.31 of the DRP order that the DRP order dated 21.09.2024 was issued to the AO & TPO as well

Marelli Um Electronic Systems Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/ Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with a direction to grant

ITA 5805/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklamarelli Um Electronic Vs. Dcit/Assessment Unit, Systems Private Limited Income Tax Department 402, Sector-8, Imt Circle 16(1) Manesar Gurugram, Delhi, Cr Building Gurgaon – 122051 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcm8906R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

panel holds that AO has correctly disallowed sum of Rs. 32,75,336/- being a unascertained liability expense." 8. Therefore, as per the directions of the DRP vide order u/s 144C(5) of the I.T. Act dated 20.09.2024 and above discussion, in light of provision of warranty, the amount

Ca (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 2078/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Girish Agrawalca(Singapore) Pte Ltd., The Assistant Vs. C/O Ca (India) Technologies Commissioner Of India Private Limited, Income Tax, S1 Wipro Sez, International Taxation, Doddathogur Village, Circle2 (1)(1), Begur Hobli, Mumbai. Electronic City, Bangalore-560100. [Pan :Aahcc8349Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ajit Jain, With Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, Ars Respondent By: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, with Shri, Siddesh Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 270ASection 274

DRP. 5.2 It was noticed that subject to the narration of the facts mentioned above in the draft assessment order and considering the directions of the DRP, the total income of the assesse is computed as under: Sr.No. Particulars Amount INR 1. Income ... Mumbai Trib.), which held that make available condition was not satisfied in case of software maintenance. 10. The Ld. DR relied upon the directions of the DRP more specifically para 6.3 at page 20. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The treatment

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Section 42 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,20,70,905/-, the Ld. AR submitted that despite the directions of the specific directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has not granted the said deduction. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that decision ... deduction as per Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, it will be appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to comply with the directions of the DRP after deciding the eligibility of the assessee. The issue is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. Ground

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Section 42 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,20,70,905/-, the Ld. AR submitted that despite the directions of the specific directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has not granted the said deduction. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that decision ... deduction as per Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, it will be appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to comply with the directions of the DRP after deciding the eligibility of the assessee. The issue is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. Ground

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Section 42 of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,20,70,905/-, the Ld. AR submitted that despite the directions of the specific directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has not granted the said deduction. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that decision ... deduction as per Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, it will be appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to comply with the directions of the DRP after deciding the eligibility of the assessee. The issue is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication. Ground

Tmeic Industrial Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 898/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.898/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Tmeic Industrial Vs. Dy.Cit Systems India Private Limited Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.As, K. C. Devdas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: C.As, K. C. Devdas, KranthiFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254

submitted that once the final assessment order is passed within 30 days from the receipt of directions of Ld. DRP, it is well within limitation. Accordingly, she submitted that the date of direction of the Ld. DRP is 25.06.2024 and the Ld. AO has passed the final assessment order ... draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act was passed on 29.09.2023, and the directions of Ld. DRP under section 144C(5) of the Act were issued on 25.06.2024. The only issue before us is whether the limitation period for passing the final

Gainsight Software Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hydersabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 796/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92D

issued under Section 144C(5) of the Act, rejected all objections and confirmed the TP adjustment in full. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the A.O. has passed the final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 13.06.2024, determining ... Section 153 B is for a limited purpose to ensure that dehors larger time is available, an order based on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the month of receipt of such directions. The section and the sub-section have

Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1358/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Dsm Shared Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Vs. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aadcd8407C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Aliasgar Rampurawala राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA Aliasgar RampurawalaFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C(3)

u/sec.144C(13) is only a restriction on the Assessing Officer to pass the final order within one month from the receipt of the Directions of the DRP and not enlarging the limitation which is provided u/sec.153 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court has held that provisions 9 ITA.No ... Section 153 B is for a limited purpose to ensure that dehors larger time is available, an order based on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the month of receipt of such directions. The section and the sub-section have

Western Up Tollway Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 67/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld.AO/Hon'ble DRP has Order passed by the A.O without giving effect to the directions of the DRP liable to be quashed. 10. erred in not adhering to the DRP Directions vide order dated 21 December 2021 under section 144C ... submitted that once the final assessment order is passed within 30 days from the receipt of directions of Ld. DRP, it is well within limitation. Accordingly, she submitted that the date of direction of the Ld. DRP is 21.12.2021 and the Ld. AO has passed the final assessment order

Western Up Tollway Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 493/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld.AO/Hon'ble DRP has Order passed by the A.O without giving effect to the directions of the DRP liable to be quashed. 10. erred in not adhering to the DRP Directions vide order dated 21 December 2021 under section 144C ... submitted that once the final assessment order is passed within 30 days from the receipt of directions of Ld. DRP, it is well within limitation. Accordingly, she submitted that the date of direction of the Ld. DRP is 21.12.2021 and the Ld. AO has passed the final assessment order

Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 170/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO/Ld.AO/Hon'ble DRP has Order passed by the A.O without giving effect to the directions of the DRP liable to be quashed. 10. erred in not adhering to the DRP Directions vide order dated 21 December 2021 under section 144C ... submitted that once the final assessment order is passed within 30 days from the receipt of directions of Ld. DRP, it is well within limitation. Accordingly, she submitted that the date of direction of the Ld. DRP is 21.12.2021 and the Ld. AO has passed the final assessment order

Cosmo Films Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7849/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roycosmo Films Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 6 (2), 1008, Dlf Tower A, New Delhi. Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan : Aaacc1152C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.10.2013 Passed By The Dcit, Circle 6 (2), Delhi Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92

furnish his findings/comments in the matter and the TPO vide his order dated 25.10.2017 has stated that after giving effect to the directions of the DRP, the earlier adjustment of Rs.4,36,48,717/- is reduced to 5 Rs.60,14,935/-. Assessing Officer, in compliance with the directions

Radhika Bahadur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), Delhi

ITA 995/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.995/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2016-17) Radhika Bahadur, C/O. R. Khare & Associates, 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi 110016 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Avapb-3016-C बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(1)(2), Civic Centre, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam Bhatnagar, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam BhatnagarFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

failed to take note of the same. 4 5. Per contra, Shri M.S Nethrapal, representing the department strongly supported the assessment order and directions of the DRP. The ld. DR however, fairly stated that since the submissions made by the assessee are factual, the matter can be remanded back ... gains. Undisputedly, the assessee had furnished a copy of purchase deed dated 16.06.2009 before the AO on 10.01.2024. This fact is evident from directions of the DRP, however, we find that in para 5.1.3 of the DRP directions, the DRP has observed that the assessee has earned Long Term Capital

Adp Private Limited, Hyderabad, Telangana vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad, Telangana

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 332/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 195(2)Section 40

objections filed by the assessee and 12 ADP Private Limited sustained all the additions made by the A.O. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the A.O. has passed the final assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 06.12.2024, determining ... Section 153 B is for a limited purpose to ensure that dehors larger time is available, an order based on the directions of the DRP has to be passed within 30 days from the end of the month of receipt of such directions. The section and the sub-section have