← 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

Ivy Software Development Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1801/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

adjustment on account of notional interest on outstanding receivables from AE. Thereafter, the learned Assessing Officer passed Final Assessment Order in pursuance to Directions of the DRP and determined the total income of the assessee-company at Rs.13,02,98,450/- by making addition of Rs.2,82,89,827/- towards

Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar, Punjab vs. DCIT, ACIT Circle 1, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 527/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 527/Asr/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri K. Mehboob Ali Khan, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80

diaries, calendars, computer stationery, copy manufacture annual reports and high-class printing segment for domestic as well as export sales”. 3. On the directions of the DRP, the TPO made certain additions which have been challenged before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts ... Satia Industries, Muktsar 4 1.1 That the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in consequence of directions of the DRP u/s 144C(5) is bad in law since, the DRP had erred on facts and in law in affirming the draft assessment order by passing a cryptic and non-speaking

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Aadl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 801/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C

payment of royalty and service fees (services segment)-INK 163,93,614 2.8 The Ld. AO (along with the Ld. TPO) under the directions of Ld. DRP erred on facts and in law, in determining the arm's length price for payment of royalty and service fees under service segment ... pertaining to provision of software support services-INR 4,26,74,072 2.15 The Ld. AO (along with the Ld. TPO) under the directions of Ld. DRP erred on facts and in law, in determining the arm's length price for provision of software support services and thereby making

Ghanshyam Ramchandra Kriplani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn. Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 566/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Ghanshyam Ramchandra The Ito, International Kriplani, 5, Netaji Society Vs Taxn., Ward-1 Nr. Jai Hind High School Ahmedabad. Maninagar Ahmedabad 380 008. Pan : Aycpk 3430 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar & Shri Samir Vora, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271Section 69

assessee against order passed by the Assessing Officer passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) on 30.1.2024 in compliance of the directions of the DRP vide its order under section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) pertaining to Assessment Year

Bao Value Fund, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/w TarangFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144CSection 147Section 68

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is incorporated in Mauritius and licensed by financial service commission of Mauritius. The ld. AR submitted that ... page 28 to 282 of PB). 4. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of AO and the directions of the DRP. 5. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee during the year under consideration has sold 20,000 shares

Siemens Mobility Gmbh, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax), 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. Ground No.1 is general not warranting any separate adjudication. Ground No.2 pertains to the arithmetical error in the computation annexed to the final order

Shell International Petroeum Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5509/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. Treatment of BSS as FTS 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. With regard to treatment ... number of users. The ld. AR drew our attention to the findings given by the DRP in para-12.3.1 of the directions wherein the DRP has held that GSAP maintenance charges are similar to SUN Maintenance Charges to submit that the nature of software being accepted as identical the decision

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3053/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. Treatment of BSS as FTS 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. With regard to treatment ... number of users. The ld. AR drew our attention to the findings given by the DRP in para-12.3.1 of the directions wherein the DRP has held that GSAP maintenance charges are similar to SUN Maintenance Charges to submit that the nature of software being accepted as identical the decision

Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3049/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

royalty. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. Treatment of BSS as FTS 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. With regard to treatment ... number of users. The ld. AR drew our attention to the findings given by the DRP in para-12.3.1 of the directions wherein the DRP has held that GSAP maintenance charges are similar to SUN Maintenance Charges to submit that the nature of software being accepted as identical the decision

Esm Group Inc, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(2)(2), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 9365/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Esm Group Inc. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T Suite 118 N, 300, Corporate Park Circle -1(2)(2) Way Amherst, New York International Taxation New Delhi Pan: Aacce 4072 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, Ca Department By :Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, CAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

Rolls Royce Vs DDIT, the Assessing Officer attributed Rs. 21,15,642/- to the income of the assessee. 11. Further, following the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer treated the amount received from RINL and SAIl as taxable

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

In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned assessment orders dated

ITA 422/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.422/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tmeic Industrial Systems Vs. Dy. Cit India Private Limited Circle 2 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Cas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha Devdas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CAs, Kranthi Palivela and Mrudulatha DevdasFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144(13)Section 144B

17/06/2022 and were sent through mail on the same date i.e. 17/06/2022. He has filed the intimation letter dated 17/06/2022 whereby the directions of the DRP were also uploaded on the ITBA Portal on 17/06/2022 itself. Thus, the directions of the DRP are deemed to be received by the Assessing ... Officer on 17/06/2022 and the limitation provided u/s 144C(13) is only one month from the end of the month in which the directions of the DRP is received and hence, expires on 31/07/2022 whereas the impugned order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 4/8/2022 which is barred

DCIT, CC- 1, Faridabad vs. Empire Realtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4288/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 144(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Adjustment (F=A-E) 1,52,16,721 6. The Assessee filed objections before the DRP and based on the directions of the DRP, Ld. TPO included two of the rejected companies Hi-Lex india Pvt. ltd. Vs. Assessment Unit and excluded two newly introduced comparable companies, use corrected ... been held to be at Arm’s length by the TPO vide order dated 08/07/2024 while passing the order giving effect to the directions of the DRP and the said entry level operating profit margin of 4.19% includes payment of royalty as on operating expense. Therefore, submitted that once

Kushal Mittal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, assessment order is quashed, and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate along with Sohum Dua, Abhyudaya Shankar BajpaiFor Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

submissions and put forth its arguments. The DRP directed the AO to consider/examine submission filed by the assessee before the DRP. 10. After directions of the DRP, the AO re-examined the issue. The Assessing Officer while passing the Final Assessment order re-characterized receipts of the assessee as business ... Assessment Order the AO re- characterized receipts as ‘Business Income’ and also held that the assessee has PE in India. Relevant excerpts from directions of the DRP in pursuance of which the AO has passed Final Assessment Order are as under:- “(vii) Based on the above facts, at this stage

Natco Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

liability that has ceased to exist. Accordingly, the objection of the assessee on this ground is rejected. 4.4. In pursuance to the directions of the DRP dated 25.06.2024 passed u/sec.144C(5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed his Final Assessment Order by determining the total income of the assessee

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 172/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.172/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabca7366H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B.G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. M Narmada, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 92C

directed against the assessment order dated, 23/01/2023 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 30/12/2022 for the A.Y 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Transfer Pricing (TP) Grounds: Page ... Income Tax Act which entitles the assessee company for its claim. 2. The Learned A0, in pursuance of the directions of the DRP, erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in disallowing the weighted component (50%) amounting to Rs.52,59,23,674 which is incurred

Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Ltd. Which Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Ltd. and Consequently Known As Idea Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle- 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved; Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Date
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 194HSection 32(1)Section 40Section 92C

Draft Assessment Order, dated 28/12/2017. On 25/09/2018, the DRP disposed off the objections granting partial relief to the Appellant. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 30/11/2018, under Section 143(3) read with Section 92CA read with Section 144C ... Final Assessment Order is concerned, we find that no such adjustment was proposed in the Draft Assessment Order. The directions received from DRP on 21/09/2017 also do not contain any directions to the Assessing Officer to make any adjustment to Book Profits computed in terms of Section 115JB

Kreuz Subsea Technologies Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), Delhi

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1767/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhkreuz Subsea Technologies Pte. Ltd. Srbc & Associates Llp 16Th Floor, The Ruby,29, Senapatibapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Pan: Aafck7070C Vs. Acit International Taxation, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 270A

DRP directed the A.O. to consider the said fact and pass consequential final assessment order as per law. Pursuant to the direction of the DRP, the final assessment order was passed by giving effect to the direction of the DRP. However, contrary to the stand taken before the DRP ... pass consequential final assessment order as per law.Subsequently, the impugned assessment order came to be passed in compliance with the directions of the DRP. Contrary to the stand taken by the Assessee before the DRP, the present Appeal is filed on the ground that both the DRP and A.O. have

Solvay Specialities India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2) / Assessment Unit, NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 6686/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. GIRISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. DhavalFor Respondent: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

read with Section 144C(13) of the Act other than those proposed in the draft order under or those given in the directions of the DRP. 5.3 The Appellant prays that it be held that the Ld. AO has exceeded his jurisdiction by not taking the total loss

Hemant Kumar, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee/appellant and against the Department

ITA 1465/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the observations of the DRP in para 17.3 (ii) of the Directions, where the DRP has determined economic life of the Aircraft as 8 years. Referring to DGCA Circular issued in 1993 the DRP concluded that since lease ... that he is not pressing ground no. 2 and 4 of appeal challenging validity of final assessment order as well as the directions of the DRP. Accordingly, ground no. 2 and 4 of appeal are dismissed as not pressed. 9. The assessees in appeal has raised ground challenging levy

Invesco(India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

ITA 506/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C.V.Bhadang, Hon'Ble, Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri G.Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mamata Choudhary
Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Nos.1856/Hyd/2019, 1771/Hyd/2019 111 & 506/Hyd/2022 and 663/Hyd/2022 144C(5) of the Act, inter-alia confirmed the TP adjustment. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed final assessment order u/s 144C(13) of the Act on 28.10.2019 in line with the directions issued by the DRP. Aggrieved