← 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

M/S. Shell International B.V., Mumbai vs. The ACIT, Intl. Taxn.-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 1657/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

case. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent ... initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira

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

ITA 2389/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

case. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent ... initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira

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

ITA 2388/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

case. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent ... initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira

M/S. Shell International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2789/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

case. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent ... initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira

M/S. Shell International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2788/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

case. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent ... initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira

M/S. Shell International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 176/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

case. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent ... initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira

M/S. Shell International B.V., Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT, Intl. Taxn.-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 175/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

case. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 / 148 of the Act, even when the conditions precedent ... initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred on the facts and in law in treating the aggregate cost recovery of Rs. 7,15,01,526 received from Hazira

Nikon India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)Section 154Section 92BSection 92C

limitation and thus non est in law at the threshold. To buttress such plea, the ld. counsel pointed out that directions of the DRP issued under s. 144C(5) are dated March 17, 2022. The assessee received the same under covering letter dated March 30, 2022 on April ... contemplated under s. 144C(13) of the Act, be it FAO or JAO. The JAO (in the instant case) thus was having direct access to DRP order from May 2, 2022 and was accountable for actions from this date. The Revenue thus contends that while the DRP order was uploaded

Publics Communications P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground 2 is allowed and ground 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 199

credit of Rs. 5.67.34.234 as claimed in the return of income by the Appellant. 3 : 2 The AO erred in not following the directions of the DRP wherein the AO has been directed to verify and grant IDS credit as per the provisions of section 199 of the Income

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 885/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

holding that receipts from GETDIL and SFO Technologies towards offshore supply were taxable in India, contrary to the binding directions of the DRP. ITA Nos. 2239,884, 885 & 2240/Del/2023 UK Grid Solutions Ltd 14. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in bringing to tax, receipts from

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

holding that receipts from GETDIL and SFO Technologies towards offshore supply were taxable in India, contrary to the binding directions of the DRP. ITA Nos. 2239,884, 885 & 2240/Del/2023 UK Grid Solutions Ltd 14. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in bringing to tax, receipts from

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

holding that receipts from GETDIL and SFO Technologies towards offshore supply were taxable in India, contrary to the binding directions of the DRP. ITA Nos. 2239,884, 885 & 2240/Del/2023 UK Grid Solutions Ltd 14. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in bringing to tax, receipts from

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

holding that receipts from GETDIL and SFO Technologies towards offshore supply were taxable in India, contrary to the binding directions of the DRP. ITA Nos. 2239,884, 885 & 2240/Del/2023 UK Grid Solutions Ltd 14. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in bringing to tax, receipts from

Superb Mind Holding Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

assessee against the assessment order dated 17.05.2022 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the AY 2018-19 pursuant to the directions of the DRP order dated 25.04.2022 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. The assessee in its appeal raised the following grounds: - I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 1. “That the Ld.AO

Lanxess India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Thane

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7344/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.7344/मुं/2018 (िन.व. 2014-15) Lanxess India Private Limited, Lanxess House, Plot No.A/162-164, Road No.27, Wagle Estate, Opp.Iti College, Midc, Thane (West) – 400 604 Pan: Aaccb-3880-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1,Thane, Room No.22, 6Th Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Ambika Nagar, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Estate, Thane (West)- 400 064 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna With Ms.Hirali Desai & Ms.Riddhi Maru "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 01/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Following Grounds Assailing The Assessment Order:

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna with Ms.Hirali Desai & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr.A.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 156Section 244A

taken as Nil and directed the TPO to retain adjustment in respect of Regional (AP) Cost. The Assessing Officer in accordance with the directions of 5 DRP passed the impugned order making following additions on account of TP adjustments: Sr.No. Issues Amount in Rs. 1. Manufacturing segment ... transaction would fall within arm’s length and no further adjustment shall be required. The TPO/A.O have not given effect to the aforesaid directions of the DRP. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that if, ground No.1 in assessee’s appeal is allowed, the plea raised in ground No.2

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

letter dated 11 April 2019 received by the Appellant from the Assessing Officer, which is on record. 7. Considering the fact that the Directions of the DRP was received by the Assessing Officer on 03 October 2018, the time limit prescribed u/s. 144C(13) to pass the Final Assessment Order ... ended on 30 November 2018 as explained hereunder: a. Direction of the DRP received by the AO on 03 October 2018 i.e. in the month of October 2018, which ends on 31 October 2018; b. One month from the end of the month in which the directions are received therefore

M/S. Skylark Fiscal Sevices Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 240/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153B

letter dated 11 April 2019 received by the Appellant from the Assessing Officer, which is on record. 7. Considering the fact that the Directions of the DRP was received by the Assessing Officer on 03 October 2018, the time limit prescribed u/s. 144C(13) to pass the Final Assessment Order ... ended on 30 November 2018 as explained hereunder: a. Direction of the DRP received by the AO on 03 October 2018 i.e. in the month of October 2018, which ends on 31 October 2018; b. One month from the end of the month in which the directions are received therefore

Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1884/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. (Formerly Vs. The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad. 4Th Floor, D-Wing, Zydus Corporate Park, Scheme No.63, Survey No.536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr.Vaishnodvi Circle, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacc 6253 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

ld.DR fairly agreed with the same, though, he heavily relied on the order of the AO, which was issued in accordance with directions of the DRP. 14. We have gone through the orders of the authority below, and we have noted from the order passed by the TPO proposing

Bmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) Circle-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalibmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Vs Acit (Int. Taxation), Ltd., 600, Singapore, Circle-1, Pune. 20-01/10 Parkview Square, Foreign, Singapore. Pan: Aaecb 0642 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Farrokh V. Irani, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, DR
Section 274

DTAA. The DRP held that the IT Support charges were chargeable as fees for technical services under the DTAA. Giving effect to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the impugned order including IT Support service charges of Rs.42.42 crore in the total income. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee ... chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under DTAA which was subsequently passed by the AO as giving effect to the said directions of the DRP. Regarding this issue, the assessee had admitted that the income from IT support services is chargeable to tax under

Pacific Internet India P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT Cir 7(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3729/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

entirety as proposed in the draft assessment order dated 30.03.2015, which goes to show that the AO has not followed the directions of the DRP in its true sense and therefore, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the AO to the extent