“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

Adama India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1771/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Hyderabad29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

question is subjected to TP proceedings u/s 92CA of the Act, followed by objections filed by the assessee before the DRP and the directions of the DRP issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act. Therefore, the reasons given by the Ld.PCIT, to set aside the assessment order, by virtue ... devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. Further, once the law does not permit the Assessing Officer to go beyond the directions of the DRP, in our considered view, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, in conformity with the DRP directions cannot be held to be erroneous

Lanxess India Private Limited, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer, Wagle Industrial Estate

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Prabhash Shankar ()

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

DRP rejected the contention of the assessee and upheld the addition proposed by the Ld.TPO by observing as under: 9.3 Directions of the DRP: The applicant has not been able to demonstrate what actual services has been delivered by the AE. Email correspondences are not a proof of any service

Ravi Ramakrishnan, Singapore vs. International Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly the alternate plea of the assessee in Ground No.4 is allowed

ITA 5990/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 49(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

give any finding with regard to the alternate plea of the assessee. Against the final order passed as per the directions of the DRP dated 10.01.2023 the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee submitted before the Tribunal that a rectification petition is filed before the DRP ... assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for the second time against the final order passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. The assessee raised various grounds contending the impugned addition made by the AO. However during the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted argument

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Asssistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-Circle 3(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2732/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. 3. The ld. AR during the course of hearing presented arguments with regard to the legal contention that the notice issued ... been clearly evidenced by the assessee. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and the directions of the DRP. 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. For the purpose of adjudication we will first consider the issue

Leman Diversified Fund, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation) Circle 3(1)(2), Mumabi

ITA 2710/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Jariwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68

Integrated Core Strategies (Asia) Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2608/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 68Section 90

addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation since ... whereas similar view has been held. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and the directions of the DRP. Integrated Core Strategies (Asia) Pte. Ltd 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case

Lion Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Addl JCIT, Ludhiyana

In the result, impugned assessment order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1711/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1711 To 1715/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2011-12, 2013-14 To 2015-16 और 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra & Ms. Priyan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT(DR)

Officer has set the tone of his findings on the issue of assessee having PE India after referring to the assessment orders and directions of the DRP for AY 2010-11 and AY 2018-19 to 2021-22. The Assessing Officer has in extenso reproduced the reply received from ... entire findings of the AO with respect to assessee having a PE in India has roots in the directions of the DRP dated 14.11.2014 for AY 2010-11. No independent findings have been given by the Assessing Officer with regard to assessee having PE in India

International Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. ACIT (It), Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7117/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

objections before the DRP. The DRP gave partial relief to the assessee and the AO passed the final assessment order as the directions of the DRP assessing the income at Rs.36,34,65,110/- by making the following additions – Particulars Rate Amount – Rs. of tax Income not admitted by relying ... taxable in India. 5. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and the directions of the DRP. 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the coordinate bench in assessee's own case

International Air Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (International Taxation) Range 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7072/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

Internatinal Air Transport Association (Canada), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly Ground No. 3 to 7 are allowed

ITA 7416/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234A

Mr Nagarajan Chandrashekhar, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward-2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Modi, CA (Virtually appear)

Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

correct in denying the Mr. Nagarajan Chandrashekhar benefit which the assessee is legally entitled to merely for the reason that the directions of the DRP do not explicitly mention that the assessee should be given the exemption under section 10(10) of the Act more so in the light

Seadrill International Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4700/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 270ASection 44B

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP. 4. The ld. AR submitted that GST is a statutory levy collected by the assessee on behalf of Government which needs to be mandatorily deposited ... Income Computation and Disclosure Standards provisions. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the AO and the directions of the DRP. 6. We heard the parties and perused the material on records. The assessee is engaged in the business of rendering offshore drilling services

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2059/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 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. 4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. With regard to treatment of BSS as FTS in the hands

Hakam Fluid Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 11(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

Bechtel Limited vs. ACIT DRP. He thus, prayed that in the present appeal since the final assessment order was passed without following the directions of the DRP, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. He prayed accordingly. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT DR filed written submissions which ... final assessment orders, which are under challenge in the present appeals, it is observed, though, the Assessing Officer bas reproduced the entire directions of learned DRP in the body of the final assessment orders, however, he has again added the receipts as FTS/FIS on substantive basis without implementing the specific

Rekha Sanjeev Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Intl.Taxn., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2021-22 Rekha Sanjeev Bhatt Vs. Ito, Ward-2 34, Paramgreen Bungalows International Tax Vill: Kolat,Tal: Sanand Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Bykpb 7551 A : Assessee By Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 69Section 69A

assessee in its order passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. The AO accordingly thereafter passed final order in accordance with the directions of the DRP making all the aforementioned additions to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the same the assessee has come up in appeal before ... under: 16 32. The reasons for rejecting the assessee’s explanation by the DRP are at para 9.3.1 as under: “9.3 Discussion and Direction of the DRP: 9.3.1 The panel has considered the content of the objection, the stand taken by the Ld. AO, submissions made and arguments presented

Cummins Generator Technologies India Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC and the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1641/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1641/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cummins Generator V The Assessment Unit, Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., S Income Tax Department, Tower A, 6Th Floor, Cummins Nfac & The Acit, India Offie Campus, Balewadi, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcc1533E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shir Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 07.06.2024; To Give Effect To The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel Dated 18.05.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. Ground For Not Following The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Drp")

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92C

rate analysis and/or establish that there was no need-rendition-receipt-benefit of the royalty related payments and services COME TAX DEPARTME 7.6. Directions of the DRP for Objection No. 6 and Objection No. 7: The objection of the Applicant succeeds. The action of the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1783/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Co No.20/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 1783/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shell Global Solutions International B.V.,, Acit, International C/O. Bsr Associates & Llp Vs Taxation-1 903, Commerce House V Ahmedabad. Nr.Vodafone House Prahaladnagar Corporation Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaics 3589 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2024 & 06/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2024

Section 143(3)Section 144C

order in this regard as under: “15. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "3. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the revenues of Rs. 51,68,025 received by the Appellant from Hazim ... para 22 to 28 as under: “22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "4. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the revenues of Rs. 8,18,82,400 received from Larsen & Toubro Limited

Shell Global Solutions International B.V, Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the CO filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Ciricle 1(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2122/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

went in appeal before the DRP which confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer and upheld the findings. 9. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings by passing the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C