“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

Gemini Property Developments India LLP, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer-Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1435/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 133(3)Section 263

report and objected for the proposed addition. 4.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the DRP observed as under : “6.4. Discussion and Directions of the DRP: Applicant argues the loan was in AED (UAE Dirham) and interest should be calculated at 3.8% as per LIBOR. TPO treated the loan

Pos-Hyundai Steel Manufacturing India Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxof Income Tax Circle 1 Ltu, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2485/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2485/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Pos – Hyundai Steel Manufacturing Deputy Commissioner Of Income India Private Limited, Vs. Tax, F-70, Sipcot Industrial Park, Circle -1, Ltu, Irungattukottai S.O., Chennai. Kanchipuram – 602 117. [Pan:Aaacp-6484-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. B. Srinath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2020-21 dated 26.07.2024, pursuant to directions of the DRP issued u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 21.06.2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Order passed

Anand Swarup Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(International Tax)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the assessment order dated 18.12.2024 which was issued in pursuant to the direction of Ld. DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act wherein the total income is assessed at Rs. 3,34,94,660/- against the returned income ... Capital Asset with period of holding enumerated from F.Y. 2017-18 for indexation purposes when the ownership and possession was acquired. 5. 5. Directions of the DRP: In view of the above discussion, the objections of the Applicant fail. On the basis of these directions, the final assessment order

Rio Tinto India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 254

above Advisory stipulate the two methods/options for uploading of the order. However, whatever be the method chosen, the directions of the DRP would be visible in the 360 degree screen to the FAO, if any assessment work item were pending with the FAO, in relation to a PAN number ... screen, since the assessment was pending with that officer. This feature has evidently been provided to ensure that an officer can access/receive the directions of the DRP as soon as it is uploaded by the Secretariat of the DRP and the pending proceedings would be completed within the statutory limitation

Wika Instruments India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2767/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(11)Section 144C(5)

Officer. Therefore, as per Section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to pass the assessment order in conformity with the directions of the DRP. In this case, DRP directed to delete the adjustment proposed by TPO. Therefore, in the assessment ITA No.2767/PUN/2024 [A] order, the Assessing Officer ... only consider the Draft Assessment Order and the directions of the DRP. After giving effect to the directions of the DRP Order, the total income would have been equal to Returned Income. However, the Assessing Officer suo-moto considered the total income mentioned in the order u/s.143

Friday Storytellers LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5546/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Karan Thaker a/w

Panel (DRP), after considering the submissions of the assessee, recorded its observations at paragraph 8.3 of its directions as under: "8.3 Discussion and Directions of the DRP: 8.3.1 The assessee contends that there is no shifting of profit from India to Mauritius and there is no tax avoidance. The assessee

Gaurav Banerjee, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward (It), 1(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2068/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Urla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 57Section 69

getting comments from the AO since the said documents were filed only 27 days before the deadline for the DRP to issue directions. Thereafter, the DRP considered the objections filed by the assessee and refused to take a different view since the assessee had not submitted any documents before ... order by the AO pursuant to the said directions of the DRP is in challenge before this Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR filed a paper book containing 17 documents and also filed an application to accept the additional evidences. The Ld.AR submitted that document

Coursera Inc., California vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1958/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandracoursera Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2)(1) 381, East Evelyn Avenue International Taxation, Mountain View, Civic Centre, Minto Road California United States New Delhi – 110002 Of America - 94040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc4141K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, &For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

against the Assessment Order dated. 27.01.2025 passed under Section 143 r.w.s 144C(13 ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in pursuance to the directions of the DRP dated 04.12.2024 passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee has raised following grounds ... High Court whereby the appeals of the Revenue has been dismissed. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has relied upon the directions of the DRP and consequential order passed by the AO. 7. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material on record

L.S Cable India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. DCIT, Circle13(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] L S Cable India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.28-31, Sector-5, Cirlce-13(1), Phase-Ii, Hsiidc Gc Bawal, New Delhi Rewari, Haryana-23501. Pan-Aabcl3621Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri S.K.Jhadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 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. In the present case, the ld. DRP vide intimation letter for order u/s 144C(5) dt. 27.06.2022 inform the assessee about ... framed and remitted to the AO. There was thus no occasion for the TPO having resumed proceedings post the passing of the direction by the DRP on 20 June 2022. 20. Undisputedly, the directive of the DRP came to be uploaded on the ITBA portal on 24 June

Volkswagen Group Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Assessment Unit Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1950/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1950/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Volkswagen Group Technology V National Faceless Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., S Assessment Center, Embassy Techzone, 9Th Floor, Assessment Unit, Delhi. 1.3 Congo Building, Rajiv Gandhi, Infotech Park, Infotech Park Hinjavadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcv1368L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153Section 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

erred passing the final assessment order dated July 25, 2024 without appropriately incorporating the directions of the DRP allowing the ground with respect to the mistakes apparent from record resulting in foreign exchange expense being considered as operating for the purpose of margin calculation. In this regard, the Appellant

Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra(Ita No. 4348/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Louis Vuitton India Vs. Dcit Retail Private Limited Circle-1(1) 901-A, 9Th Floor, Time Gurgaon, Tower, Mg Road, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aaacl8230E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 253(1)Section 928Section 92D

objection of the Assessee, the DRP vide order dated 30/06/2024 issued directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act. In compliance with the directions of the DRP, a final assessment order came to be passed on 23/07/2024 u/s 143(3) r.w. Section 144C(13)r.w. Section 144B

ITO (International Taxation) Gurgaon, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon vs. Bain and Company India Private Ltd., Dlf Cyber City Phase-II

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2869/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 195Section 201

case of Bain US for assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to the directions of the DRP in Bain US case for AY 2022- 23, submitted that on identical facts and circumstances the DRP has categorically held that the reimbursement received

ITO (International Taxation) Gurgaon, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon vs. Bain and Company India Private Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2867/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 195Section 201

Harkesh Arora, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1463/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Harkesh Arora, Dcit, Jp-107, Maurya Enclave, Vs. Circle, Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Adlpa6660N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144CSection 147Section 69Section 69A

final assessment order dated 30.01.2024 for the AY 2018-19 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 08.12.2023 u/s 144C of the Act. Assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.69

Alpa India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 457/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Sri PVSS Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

vide his final assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act, dated 23/08/2022 gave effect to the directions of the DRP and determined the income of the assessee company at Rs. 30,38,15,784/-. 11. The assessee company, being aggrieved with the order passed

Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1283/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

paid shares. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. 5. Ground No.1 is general. Ground No.2 is with regard to taxation of STCG on sale of rights entitlement. The ld. AR at the outset submitted ... applicable for the year under consideration also. 6. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the AO and the directions of the DRP. 7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1281/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Vanguard Funds Public Limited Company Vang Ftse Emerging Mkts Ucits Etf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1280/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1277/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund A Series Of Visplc, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aaccv3136B Appellant) Vs. Acit (It)-4(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Maharashtra-400051. : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1278/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vftc- Institutional Total International Stock Market Index Trust Ii, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aadtv1640C Acit (It)-4(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Maharashtra-400051. Appellant) : Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 1279/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund A Series Of Vieif, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Vs. Acit (It)-4(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Maharashtra-400051. Pan: Aaaty0918K Appellant) : Respondent) 2

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund A Series of Vief, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1279/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143(3)

paid shares. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. 5. Ground No.1 is general. Ground No.2 is with regard to taxation of STCG on sale of rights entitlement. The ld. AR at the outset submitted ... Index Fund A Series of VISPLC & Ors 6. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the AO and the directions of the DRP. 7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case

Vftc Institutional Total International Stock Market Index Trust II, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1278/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)