← 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

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. S Vinodkumar Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2282/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

DRP has passed order on 06.01.2020 and has deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO for A.Y.2011-12. The relevant portion of directions of the DRP is reproduced as under: “The assessee's submission and facts of the case have been carefully considered. It is seen that the appellant ... said submissions were reiterated by the assessee before learned DRP also which is evident from assessee’s submissions as extracted in the directions of Ld. DRP on page no.-10 of the directions dated ITA No.968/Mum/2016 M/s. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year :2011-12 3 14/12/2015

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. S Vinodkumar Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2281/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 92B

DRP has passed order on 06.01.2020 and has deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made by the TPO for A.Y.2011-12. The relevant portion of directions of the DRP is reproduced as under: “The assessee's submission and facts of the case have been carefully considered. It is seen that the appellant ... said submissions were reiterated by the assessee before learned DRP also which is evident from assessee’s submissions as extracted in the directions of Ld. DRP on page no.-10 of the directions dated ITA No.968/Mum/2016 M/s. S. Vinodkumar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year :2011-12 3 14/12/2015

Altera Digital Health (India) LLP (Formerly Known As Allscripts (India) LLP), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, Ground Number 11 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(1)

software development services 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO following the directions of Ld. DRP, erred in confirming the addition of INR 3,94,09,319/- to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction ... deleted 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Lid. AD/ Ld. TPO, following the directions of Ld. DRP, erred in disregarding the fact that the Appellant has duly complied with the provisions of Section

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

passed under section 143(3)/144C(13)/144B of the Acton the basis of TPO’s order dated 20.09.2024 giving effect to directions of the DRP as per which the final TP adjustment has been reduced to Rs.4,83,44,771 from Rs.5,74,93,755 by determining ... time of hearing ld. AR of the submitted that Copy of TPO’s order dated 20.09.2024 giving effect to directions of the DRP was not provided to the Assessee prior to passing of final assessment order. Such TPO’s order has been provided subsequently on request of the Assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

available, the entire other income amounting to Rs. 720,100,000/- was excluded while computing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.” Directions of the DRP: Vide order dated 18-12-2014, the DRP-II considered the objection on this issue and rejected the same giving detailed reasons

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, ITA No.1073/Del/2015 & ITA No.1158/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 2 dated 27/01/2015, as per directions issued by DRP vide Order dated 18/12/2014. Both, the Revenue and the Assessee are in appeal before us against the aforesaid Final Assessment Order. ITA NO.1158/DEL/2015 ... available, the entire other income amounting to Rs.720,100,000/- was excluded while computing the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.” Directions of the DRP: Vide order dated 18-12-2014, the DRP-II considered the objection on this issue and rejected the same giving detailed reasons for the same

Bmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 329/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honourable income-tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law." Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties, perused the records. Assessee is Tax Resident of Singapore and it is engaged in selling Software Products to end use customers, including customers in India. It is mentioned in the Assessment Order that Assessee has also provided IT Support and Maintenance Services with reference to such softw

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 274Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee has raised similar ground of objection before the DRP for AYs 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. …………………………. 5.4 Directions of the DRP: We find that the issue involved is pari materia the same as those of earlier years and DRP had decided this issue

M/S. Tbea Shenyang Trasformer Group Company Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax., Vadodara

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92E

assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(2). As recorded by the Assessing Officer, directions of the DRP under section 144C(5) were received in the office on 04.10.2017, wherein the upward addition made by the TPO was upheld. Consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer finalized

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 1203/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 260Section 80GSection 92C

dated 28.12.2024 deleted the addition of Rs.43,42,55,948/- as proposed by the TPO vide order u/s.92CA dated 13.10.2023. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the order under challenge is passed by accepting the returned income. However, the assessee is aggrieved on the following grounds and preferred

Doulat Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Cricle-2 Chennai, Chennai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2236/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 119Section 131Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147

fact that the impugned final assessment order had electronically generated valid DIN which order alone is challengable before the ITAT and that the directions of the DRP merged with the final assessment orders serves only as a guidance to the Assessing Officers to pass the final assessment orders ... would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular and therefore, in our view, there cannot be any doubt that the directions of the DRP which consists of a collegium of three Income Tax Commissioners also would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular

Sky High II Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1550/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted that the identical issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case

Sky High Lxxx Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1549/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted that the identical issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case

Sky High Lxxviii Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1548/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted that the identical issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case

Sky High Xc Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1547/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 234B

India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted that the identical issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case

Sky High Lxxix Leasing Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1546/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

India. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 5. At the outset the ld. AR submitted that the identical issue has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case

Praful Arjun Rane, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 18Section 56Section 69

Proposing to assess 144C(1) of the Act 95.53,365/- as total income. 3 Praful Arjun Rane AY 2015-16 6 Directions of the DRP issued 02.12.2024 Directing to assess u/s 144C(5) of the Act only 18,73,965/- as total income 7 Final assessment order u/s 10.01.2025 Assessing

Maersk Logistics & Services International A/S (Erstwhile, Damco International A/S), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (It) Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1329/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115A(1)(b)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

similar. A perusal of the directions of DRP dated 11/09/2017 would show that the DRP has placed heavy reliance on the directions of the DRP for assessment year 2012-13, wherein instead of present assessee, Damco International AS, a Danish entity was the assessee. In para 4.2 of the DRP

Hazira Port Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cicle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

ITA 265/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit SahniFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(3)Section 92C(3)

second legal ground, the Ld. DR submitted that the second assessment order dated 31.05.2022 was passed only to give effect to the directions of the DRP issued on 28.04.2022, which were based on the mistaken belief that the assessee had filed a valid intimation with the AO. It was further ... dated 27.12.2021 passed Hazira Port Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 12– under Section 143(3) read with 144C(3) pursuant to directions issued by DRP under Section 144C(5) was liable to be set aside. Again in the case of the Undercarriage and Tractor Parts

Virinchi Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1185/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1185/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Virinchi Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacv6672N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Mrs. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 09/10/2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act, In Pursuant To The Directions Of The Drp Dated 19/09/2024 Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act For The A.Y 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Mrs. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153

assessee is directed against the assessment order dated 09/10/2024 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act, in pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 19/09/2024 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act for the A.Y 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR
Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

issue which was neither raised by the Appellant nor applicable in the case of the Appellant. The assessment order passed based on such directions of the DRP is bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Before us, Ld. AR has argued that the AO/DRP have decided the issue which was not raised by the assessee and the directions issued by DRP show clear non-application of mind. Specifically, with regard to Ground No. 1,2 & 3 raising legal issues, Ld. AR has argued that