← 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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4599/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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. 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 Em Asia Ucits Etf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4566/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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. 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 Msci Em Imi Ucits Etf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4565/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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. 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 Imi Equity Index Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4563/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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. 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 Dege Msci Em Minimum Volatility Ucits, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International of Income Tax (Int Tax)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 4562/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 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. 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

India Acorn Fund Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4556/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri MADHUR Agarwal / FenilFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 234C

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

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3093/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w SamkitFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80Section 80ISection 92Section 92B

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. Brief facts pertaining to the issue under consideration. During the Financial Year relevant to AY 2019-20 the assessee has transferred

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(3)1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 1195/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth SR.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

assessee. Hence these expenses are held to be non business and are disallowed & added to the income of the assessee. The directions of the DRP Since the assessee company has not contested this ground of appeal before the DRP-II, the addition made by the AO remains intact

Owens Corning, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissione of Income Tax _(International Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4627/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/w MsFor Respondent: 21.05.2024
Section 9(1)(vi)

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 issue of treating the receipts towards lease rental as Royalty is a recurring issue and that the co-ordinate ... these facts, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the DRP on this issue and, accordingly, set aside the directions of the DRP and direct the AO to delete the addition.” 7. We noticed that the decision rendered in A.Y. 2012-13 by the Coordinate Bench

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 4(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4693/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2024AY 2021-22
For Respondent: Date of Hearing

assessee is to be taxed in India. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 6. The ld. AR submitted that the revenue has been holding that the income from reinsurance business of the assessee is taxable in India

Jane Street Asia Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3329/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w HardikFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 70(2)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 4. 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

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2834/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP disposed off the objections granting partial relief to the Assessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 28/01/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act, assessing total

Vodafone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP disposed off the objections granting partial relief to the Assessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 28/01/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act, assessing total

DCIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

ITA 1919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234DSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 40

Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2015. On 22/12/2015, the DRP disposed off the objections granting partial relief to the Assessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order, dated 28/01/2016, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act, assessing total

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

previous years and the submissions of the assessee are also identical. In connection with this issue it is essential to highlight the directions of the DRP dated 22/03/2022 in the assessee's case for the Assessment Year 2017-18 The DRP on this issue in Para No 12 Page ... directions dated 22/03/2022 held as under. On this issue the reliance is made on the directions of the DRP. (ii) See the following observations of the DRP "The Panel has carefully considered the facts of the case and the detailed submissions made by the assessee. It is noticed that this

Conferencecall Services India Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adhak (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

submitted that the AO was duty bound to complete the final assessment of the assessee inconformity with the directions of the DRP within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received. According to him, the AO had received the order of the DRP ... found placed at Page Nos. 3 to 4 of the Paper Book], wherein, it was asserted that the AO having received the direction of the DRP on or before 21.09.2017, he was bound to complete the final assessment order before 31.10.2017 and since, the last date for passing the order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Essar Ports Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 4A

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

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

restricted the proposed adjustments in proportion to the value of Specified Domestic Transactions undertaken by the assessee. 12. In terms of the directions of the DRP, the TPO passed an order giving effect to the DRP direction dated 21.06.2022 vide order dated 21/07/2022 and recomputed the ALP adjustment

Openwave Mobility, Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1644/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

India-USA DTAA which applies in this case. Grounds 1 to 3 are disposed of as above.” 4. Pursuant to the above directions of the DRP, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C(13) on 26.05.2022 stating that the Ld. DRP has rejected

Skybridge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, (Tp)-2 Hyderbad, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar(Through Virtual Mode) & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Skybridge Solutions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad, (Transfer Pricing)-2, H.No.8-2-239/L/83-A, Hyderabad. Plot No.83/A, Mla Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana. Pan : Aalcs1899M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2021-22 Arises From The Impugned Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26.12.2023. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Software Development & Services Company, Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2021-22 On 09.03.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,06,49,030. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act On 24.08.2022. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & A Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued On 28.06.2022, To Which The Assessee Responded On 15.07.2023. Thereafter, A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1) Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm'S Length Price For Transactions With Associated Enterprises. The Tpo, Through An Order Dated 31.10.2023, Directed An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.1,83,25,993 To The Assessee'S Income For The Financial Year 2020-21. Consequently, A Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On November 9, 2023, Regarding The Proposed Adjustment, Along With A Penalty Initiation Under Section 270A.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Raichandani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 154Section 253(1)(d)Section 270A

assessee to raise the objections against the draft assessment order. This obligation under the Act is not dependent upon issuance of any direction by the DRP. Hence, the order passed by the learned AO on 26/12/2023 5 was on account of independent obligation u/s 144C ... postulates right of the assessee to file an appeal before the Tribunal in case, the AO passes any order in pursuant to the directions of the DRP. In the present case, the order passed by the AO was not on account of any direction but was passed on account