“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

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2193/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

appeals were filed against assessment order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act pursuant to the directions of the DRP under section 144C of the Act. 2. In so far as the appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 is concerned, Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited (BTTH) the assessee

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2192/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

Gensler Singapore Prvivate Limited, Singapore vs. JCIT, Circle-1(3)(1) International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7694/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: C. A

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

section 143(3) read with 1 ITA. No. 7694/Del/2019 section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) pursuant to the directions of the DRP order dated 7.06.2019 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “Ground

Chandan Bhuillar, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation-1(1)(2), New Delhi

Accordingly, the ground no. 1, 2 and 3 are allowed and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Chandan Bhuillar Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 22, Gauri Apartments, Tax Rajesh Pilot Lane, Central Int. Tax-1(1)(2), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi Pan : Aelpb7507E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

date of this order. Chandan Bhuillar 3 7. Then final assessment order dated 25.07.2022 has in its body reproduced the decision and directions of the DRP and when same are considered it becomes apparent that dealing with ground no. 2, 3 and 6, the DRP has made observations that there

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

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 919/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 27

Officer. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of the DRP. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned AO has erred in initiating re-assessment proceedings for the subject

Aero Club, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

assessee dated 27.06.2022. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act, the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions of ld. DRP, complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month ... Therefore, the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) is within time as the TPO order ,passed on the directions on the DRP received on 15.09.2022, and acknowledgment of which generated on 16.09.2022.” 10. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Edenred Se (Formerly Known As Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax International Taxation-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1563/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthi () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the directions of the DRP by raising the following grounds:- “1. General Ground The Assessing Officer („AO‟) has erred in assessing the total income ... bench since there is no change to the facts pertaining to the issue. 7. The Ld.DR relied on the assessment order and the directions of the DRP. 8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the co-ordinate bench in assessee‟s own case

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

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

ITA 1800/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Stay Application No.256/Del/2022 (Ita No.1800/Del/2022) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nikon India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.71, Sector-32, Circle-3(1), Institutional Area, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001. Pan: Aaccn5100F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit Sahani, Advocates; & Shri Yishu Goel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: The Appeal In Ita No.1800/Del/2022 & The Stay Application In Sa No.256/Del/2022 Filed By The Assessee Arise Out Of The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Sa No.256/Del/2022 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 25.07.2022 By The Assessment Unit, Of The Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

DRP upheld application of AMP expenses under Intensity Approach for benchmarking the transaction on substantive basis. Final assessment order pursuant to the directions of the DRP was passed accordingly by the ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. It is not in dispute that the addition

M/S. Bhatia Global Trading Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibhatia Global Trading Ltd. Dcit 1(1) Through Official Liquidator Indore Old Cia Building, 1St Floor Vs. Opp. G.P.O. Residency Area, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacb6751 C Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14A

assessee as not independent entity but only liaison office/administrative offices of the assesse was upheld by DRP. He has relied upon the directions of the DRP and submitted that the DRP has Page 5 of 17 Bhatia Global Trading Ltd. Page 6 of 17 considered peculiar facts of the case

Sabre Travel Network (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1056/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)Section 92C

Appellant in respect of international transactions entered into by it during the year ended 31 March 2008. 2. The learned AO, following the directions of the DRP, erred by rejecting the transfer pricing study report submitted by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons. 3. The learned AO, following ... directions of the DRP, erred in incorrectly ascertaining Appellant to be a full-fledged entrepreneur with high risks, by ignoring the facts of case. 4. The learned AO following the directions of the DRP, erred in rejecting the exhaust benchmarking analysis conducted by the Appellant. 5. The learned AO erred

M/S. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. The ACIT NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 84/IND/2022[2017-18/]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Nfac) Plot No.A-43, Phase-Ii, Delhi Midc Chakan, Village Vs. Sawardari, Taluka Khed, Pune (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcb 2304 E Assessee By Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 23.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 43(1)

Works Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). 4. Before the Tribunal ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that DRP has relied upon the earlier directions of the DRP for A.Y.2016-17 which were reversed by the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in assesse’s own case vide order dated 21st April ... different treatment to the subsidy by reducing it from the written down value of fixed assets. 6. Ld. DR has referred to the directions of the DRP and submitted that decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) squarely covers

Parle Biscuits Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2484/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 28Section 40

Ld.AR in this regard submitted that the AO while passing the final assessment order did not give effect to the directions of the DRP. The Ld.AR submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee has made an addition of Rs.3,26,32,245/- while computing the total income ... However, in the final assessment order, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer had retained the disallowance without any detailed discussion on the directions of the DRP. We, in this regard direct the Assessing Officer to verify the submissions of the assessee in this regard and allow the claim

Mr.Vineet Shrivastava, Bhopal vs. The ITO ( It&Tp), Bhopal

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

ITA 107/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimr. Vineet Shrivastava Ito (It & Tp) E-7/795, Arera Colony Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bcxps 2544 H Assessee By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)

delay. The Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the AO without giving effect to the directions of the DRP dated 29.06.2022. Therefore, the assessee initially filed an application dated 17th August 2022 before the AO with request to complete the assessment based ... present appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned assessment order passed by the AO which suffers illegality as not inconsonance with the directions of the DRP dated 29th June 2022. 3. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Sucessor of Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd.- (Ssipl), Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

ITA 657/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, SR AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das –CIT-DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

wrong action of ld AO in passing Draft assessment order and TP order cannot be held to be invalid. He referred to the directions of the DRP wherein it has been stated that the return of income filed by the assessee is invalid. The objections of the assessee are also ... dismissed in limini. The direction of the DRP is binding on the AO. Therefore refund cannot be granted. He referred to the provisions of Section 139(9) of the Act and stated that the revised return can be filed only in the case when a person discovers any omission

Maersk Logistics & Services International B.V, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: Manish KanthFor Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 144CSection 148Section 234BSection 270A(2)

similar. A perusal of the directions of DRP dated 11/09/2017 would show that the DRP has placed heavy reliance on the directions of the DRP for assessment year 2012-13, wherein instead of present assessee, Damco International AS, a Danish entity was the assessee. In para 4.2 of the DRP

Maersk Logistics & Services International B.V., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed

ITA 909/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos.909 & 937/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2020-21)

For Appellant: Manish KanthFor Respondent: Chandip Singh

Section 144CSection 148Section 234BSection 270A(2)

Shabbir Rajabali Vakil, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 874/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshabbir Rajabali Vakil Vs. Ito (Int. Tax) Ward 701, Silver View, 4(3)(1), Room No. 1625, Chimbai Road, Bandra 16Th Floor, Air India West, Mumbai – 400050 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abvpv6524C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Abhishek SamdaniFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for the transfer of such immoveable property.” After perusal of the directions of the DRP we find that the assesse has also furnished copies of agreement for purchase of three properties before the DRP as categorically referred at page

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

ESCarts), the relevant part is extracted as below: “2. Receipts on sale of Renewable Energy Certificates[REC] & ESCERTS [Addition made as per directions of the DRP]: Before we specifically, deal with the above said ground of appeal, it is important to give the ‘brief profile’ of the company

Oxford University Press, Mumbai vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2327/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.2327/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व.2018-19) Oxford University Press, 22 Workspace, 2Nd Floor, 1/22 Ansari Road, New Delhi, Delhi – 110 002 Pan: Aaaco-3278-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dcit, International Taxation, Circle -3(2)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 007. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rishabh Malhotra ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MalhotraFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 40

Rs.2,98,84,072/- and u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act to Rs.1,05,21,136/-. The Assessing Officer consequent to the directions of the DRP passed the impugned order. 3.2 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted at the outset that in respect of ground No.1