← 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

Msv International Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3916/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)

r.w.s. 144C(13) by learned AD is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed without complying to the directions of the DRP issued 2 MSV International INC under section 144C(5) of the Act and thus, violated the provisions of section 144C

Sunil Kumar Nayak, Jhunjhunu vs. Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur

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

ITA 148/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld. Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69

draft assessment order was issued on 22.03.2023. 4. Against this draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the direction of the DRP in this case reads as under:- “4.1.1 Ground numbers 1 to 9 are interrelated and pertain to the proposed variation made ... Directions under section 144C of the Income Tax Act 5.1 The Assessing Officer is directed to complete the assessment as per the above directions of the DRP. The AO shall place a copy of these directions as annexure to the final order, to be read as a part

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

No.284/Bang/2021 M/s. AstraZeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore Page 14 of 37 11.2 The Ld. TPO issued an OGE to the directions of the DRP by re-computing the total AMP adjustment as INR 35,67,86,587 by arriving at the non-routine AMP expenditure ... Associated Enterprise to promote the brands owned by such Associated Enterprise.” 11.12 Further, in Para 2.4.4. on page 33 of the DRP’s directions, the ld. DRP has referred to an agreement dated 24 March 2015 between the Assessee and its AE to arrive at a conclusion that there

M/S Centrient Pharmaceuticals India Private Limited, Nawanshahar vs. Additinal/Joint/Deputy/Asstt. C.It, ITO, Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 102/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 144

proposed the adjustment in respect of payment of Corporate Service Fee and which has subsequently been confirmed by the DRP and following the directions of the DRP, the same have been followed by the AO and forms part of the adjustment as per final assessment order passed

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 3339/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144(10)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not following the directions of the DRP without appreciating the fact that Section 144(10) of the Act mandates every direction issued by the Id. DRP is binding ... against the above orders and give effect to the ITAT’s directions if the matter has attained finality in judicial proceedings. The relevant directions of the DRP in para 4.3 of this order is reproduced as under:- “Since the legal and factual matrix remains unchanged, the DRP reiterates its directions

Amplus Power Solutions Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT-Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 to 8 of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1213/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.1213/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Amplus Power Solutions P. Ltd., 6Th Floor, The Palm Square, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-66, Gurugram 122102, Haryana ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaoca0544J बनाम Vs. The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Circle1(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29.3.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Nine Grounds. The Ground No. 1 To 8 Of Appeal Are Against Addition Made On Interest On Non Convertible Debentures & Non Compliance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)/Assessing Officer (Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

verify the factual contentions of the assessee and pass a speaking order in respect thereof. The TPO while giving effect to the directions of the DRP vide order 17.03.2022 fail to consider the directions of DRP and retained the adjustment without even referring to the observations of the DRP ... case of ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C ET Compagnie vs. UOI 68 taxmann.com 377 to contend that where the AO/TPO failed to follow directions of the DRP, the final assessment order is liable to be quashed. 3.2 He further pointed that determination of arm’s length interest rate

Oakton Global Technology Services Centre (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 309/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.309/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Oakton Global Technology Vs. Income Tax Officer Services Centre (India) (P) Ltd, Ward 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaaco8824H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bhardwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(5)

software development services at Rs.1,36,52,580/- however, restricted the imputation of interest on receivables at Rs.19,53,369/- as per the directions of the DRP. The Assessing Officer had also made addition of Rs.51,06,702/- towards disallowance of employees contribution

Clinasia Labs Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 202/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri Nemichand Sirvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

that order, the DRP was not convinced by the objection raised by the assessee and ultimately passed the order. 8. Based on the directions of the DRP, AO has passed the final assessment order and in the final assessment order, the AO has proposed an addition (TP adjustment ... assessee.” 19. Per contra, learned DR had submitted that a fresh direction may kindly be issued to AO/TPO to comply with the directions of the DRP. 20. We have considered the rival contentions and perusal the material available on record. Since the issue had already been adjudicated by the DRP

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

thus submitted by the Ld.Sr.Counsel that, under such circumstances, the time limit laid down in section 144C(12) for issuing the direction by the DRP is mandatory. And once the directions are not issued within the time limit specified u/s. 144C(12), the directions become time barred and invalid ... revenue only when there is technical defect or omission and will not come to rescue the department for failure of issuing directions by the DRP within the specified time limit as mandated under 144C(12) of the act. Page 31 of 86 IT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022 He further

Inabensa Bharat Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8128/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.8128/िद"ी/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Inabensa Bharat P. Ltd., A-225, Double Story, Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi 110019 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabci0386D बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), C.R Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(6) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. This Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee In December 2018. Initially The Assessee Was Represented By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate. The Assessee Had Filed An Application For Early Hearing Of Appeal. The Same Was Allowed By The Tribunal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessment order and the order of TPO. 4. The assessee in appeal has primarily raised two grounds assailing the assessment order and the directions of the DRP i.e. (i) Adjustment on account of foreign exchange fluctuation gains; and (ii) Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of engineering services segment. The assessee ... DRP vide directions dated 18.09.2018 granted part relief to the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed the 4 impugned order in accordance with the directions of the DRP. No material to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer or the order of Transfer Pricing Officer is furnished before the Tribunal. Thus

Ishares India 50 Etf (As A Successor to Ishares India Mauritius Co (Liquidated)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4602/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Ishares Core Emerging Mauritius Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4601/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Ishares Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Mauritius Co, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4600/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Ishares Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Emerging Markets Index Mauritius Co (Liquidated)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4598/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Ishares Msci Emerging Markets Asia Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Em Asia Mauritius Co (Liquidated)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4597/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf (As A Successor to Ishares All Country Asia Ex Japan Mauritius Co (Liquidated)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4596/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Ishares India Index Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4595/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Ishares India SC Mauritius Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4593/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 143(3)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the only reason for the AO to deny the benefit of set off of STCL to the assessee is that

Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore, India

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

ITA 312/BANG/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

paid @ 11.27% Rs. 15,21,45,002/- Excess Interest paid by the Rs. 6,04,80,001/- taxpayer / TP Adjustment B. DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY DRP: Briefly, the directions issued by the DRP are as follows: i. The DRP accepted the contentions of the Assessee that Indian Infrastructure Finance company ... benchmarking analysis. IT(TP)A No.312/Bang/2024 Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore Page 7 of 10 C. FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER: Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed a final assessment order, wherein the TP adjustment stood reduced to Rs. 4,38,75,001/-. D. Grounds

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), Delhi

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

ITA 475/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumarmckinsey Knowledge Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 16 (1), 3Rd Floor, Block Iii, Delhi. Vatika Business Park, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccm2356G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Order : 04.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 21.01.2022 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Drp For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

counterarguments to the above submission made by the Appellant's Counsel. Further, it accepted that the Learned TPO failed to follow the directions of the DRP and requested that the computation provided by the Appellant only be set aside to verify the calculation. 1.10 In view of the above ... examination the details filed by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel stated that the TP I AO has not given effect to the directions of the DRP. Further the Ld counsel also submitted before the Hon'ble Bench calculations/computations with regard to the above noted ground which are enclosed as annexure