“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

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

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

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

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

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

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 CC-3(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Essar Ports Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed, being bereft of merit and devoid of substance

ITA 4103/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bledcit Cc 3(4), Mumbai Essar Ports Limited 11, Keshavrao Khadye Marg 613, Kautilya Bhawan G Clock Mahalaxmi Vs Bkc Bandra, Mumbai – 400034 Mumbai – 400051, Maharastra Maharastra

For Appellant: Shri Tarang MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

dated 18.03.2014, had worked out the disallowance under Sec. 144 r.w.r. 8D at Rs. 130,98,64,725/- However, pursuant to the directions of the DRP that the disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D was to computed after considering only those investments which had yielded exempt income during

Rubicon Research Limited (Formerly Known As Rubicon Research Private Limited), Thane, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6647/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

draft assessment order issued by the Ld. AO, the assessee filed objections before Ld. DRP, Mumbai. In pursuance to the directions of the DRP, the proposed adjustment of Rs. P a g e | 4 ITA No. 6647/Mum/2024 AY 2021-22 Rubicon Research Limited (Formerly Known as Rubicon Research

Juhi Bhandari, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (through VC)

Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

paid by cheque by the assessee, in absence to prove the source thereof. The ld. AO followed that direction of the DRP and accordingly final assessment order was framed on 24.01.2025. Upon receipt of that order the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds including that of the additional ... that additions qua 153A/153C proceedings can be restricted only to the extent of incriminating material found during the course of search. Thus the directions of the DRP to make additions towards the amount paid by cheque by the assessee to the Builder is beyond the mandate of section 153C

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 159/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment in purchase of property for assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. In pursuance to the Directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Order dated 17.01.2025 under section 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made additions of Rs.16

Pavani Dutt, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 158/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: CA, Satish Kumar SolankiFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 10(4)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

passed by the Assessing officer within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the directions from the DRP are received. Further as per clause (xxviii) and (xxix) of sub-section 1 to section 144B provides that the Faceless Assessment Centre after receiving the directions ... giving effect. Thereafter the final order u/s 144C(13) was passed on 28.12.2019 considering the adjustments worked out by TPO on the rectified directions of ld. DRP. In this regard, we are of the view that in terms of the provisions of section 144C(13), the AO has to pass

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

Appeal of the assessee is disposed of

ITA 73/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.73/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shakti Hormann Private Vs. Acit Limited Circle-3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan : Aadcs4024Q

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

contribution, though this issue is decided by the DRP in favour of the assessee, however, the AO has not given effect to the directions of the DRP. Now this issue is covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

Manavi Goel Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1225/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Miteshykumar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68Section 69C

Applicant are not relevant. In view of the above discussion, the averments of the Applicant do not find favour with this Panel. 5.4. Directions of the DRP: The transactions in the tainted scrip itself are the indicator that the applicant has been a beneficiary of market manipulation. There