← 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

Uk Grid Solution Ltd, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2088/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2088/Del/2022, A.Y. 2019-20 Uk Grid Solution Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of St. Loeonards Building, Harry Income Tax Kerr Drive, Circle- 3(1)(1), Stafford, St16 1Wt, International Taxation United Kingdom New Delhi Pan : Aaica6271A

Section 143(3)Section 90(2)

Grid Solution Ltd, United Kingdom Rs.1,35,55,339 from SFO towards offshore supply were taxable in India, contrary to the binding directions of the DRP. 10. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in bringing to tax receipts of Rs.51,85,13,082 from offshore supply

Uk Grid Solution Ltd, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2087/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 2087/Del/2022, A.Y. 2018-19 Uk Grid Solution Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of St. Loeonards Building, Harry Income Tax Kerr Drive, Circle- 3(1)(1), Stafford, St16 1Wt, International Taxation United Kingdom New Delhi Pan : Aaica6271A

Section 143(3)Section 9Section 90(2)

from GETDIL and Rs.1,35,55,339 from SFO towards offshore supply were taxable in India, contrary to the binding directions of the DRP. 10. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in bringing to tax receipts of Rs.51,85,13,082 from offshore supply made

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 319/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

DRP has rightly included the same as it is a comparable company. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/AO and directions of the DRP. 14.3. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that ... Pune Tribunal) - DCIT vs. Amber Point Technology India Private Limited: ITA No. 756/Pune/2014 (Pune Trib) 14.5. The Ld. DR relied upon the directions of the DRP and the order of TPO/AO. 14.6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. E-zest Solutions

M/S. Computer Science Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. The ACIT-Circle 2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 292/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

DRP has rightly included the same as it is a comparable company. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/AO and directions of the DRP. 14.3. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that ... Pune Tribunal) - DCIT vs. Amber Point Technology India Private Limited: ITA No. 756/Pune/2014 (Pune Trib) 14.5. The Ld. DR relied upon the directions of the DRP and the order of TPO/AO. 14.6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. E-zest Solutions

M/S. Computer Sciences Corporation India Private Limited, Indore vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Indore

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application is also disposed of

ITA 179/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(8)

DRP has rightly included the same as it is a comparable company. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/AO and directions of the DRP. 14.3. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that ... Pune Tribunal) - DCIT vs. Amber Point Technology India Private Limited: ITA No. 756/Pune/2014 (Pune Trib) 14.5. The Ld. DR relied upon the directions of the DRP and the order of TPO/AO. 14.6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. E-zest Solutions

Delhi Cargo Service Center, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9833/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, EmployeeFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 271Section 37(1)Section 43B

examine the evidence and allow to the extent supported by the evidence. The Ld. AO gave effect to the directions of the DRP and completed the assessment on total loss of Rs. 13,28,20,730/- on 30.10.2019 under section 143(3) r.w. section 144C ... that the impugned interest has been paid in AY 2015-16 and therefore it is an allowable deduction. However, after receipt of the direction of the DRP to verify the evidence of payment and allow the same as deduction, the Ld. AO made the impugned disallowance under section

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Vcostomer Services India Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

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

ITA 1618/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144C/92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.01.2016 on the directions of the DRP dated 30.11.2015 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The assessee as well as the Revenue in its appeals have raised ... Infosys B.P.O. Ltd. (iii) TCS E-Serve Ltd. (iv) Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) 9. The Revenue in its appeal is challenging the directions of the DRP in excluding Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Accentia Technologies Ltd. is engaged

M/S. Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1404/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/144C/92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.01.2016 on the directions of the DRP dated 30.11.2015 passed under section 144C(5) of the Act. 2. The assessee as well as the Revenue in its appeals have raised ... Infosys B.P.O. Ltd. (iii) TCS E-Serve Ltd. (iv) Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg) 9. The Revenue in its appeal is challenging the directions of the DRP in excluding Accentia Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Accentia Technologies Ltd. is engaged

Travelport Lp, Georgia Usa vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6503/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar – CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234C

connection/PE in India. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP erred in computing the total income of the Appellant at INR 4,97,37,942 as against returned income of Nil without appreciating ... much as the findings given by the Assessing Officer is totally based upon the findings given in earlier Assessment Years. Even the directions of the DRP are based upon the directions given in earlier Assessment Years and both the authorities grossly erred in not realizing that the assessee has discontinued

Oxbow Energy Solutions Llc, Usa vs. DCIT International Taxation - 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 574/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 69A

deleted the addition of Rs.53,14,19,634/- made by the Assessing Officer. While passing the final assessment order in pursuance to the directions of learned DRP, the Assessing Officer, though, deleted the addition of Rs.53,14,19,634/- proposed in the draft assessment order, however, he added the amount ... order.” 10. As could be seen on a perusal of the final assessment order under challenge in the present appeal, while implementing the directions of learned DRP, the Assessing Officer, though, deleted the addition made of Rs.53,14,19,634/-, however, he made the addition of Rs.26

Veolia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6011/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14 Veolia India Pvt Ltd. Acit B-1, Marble Arch, 9, Prithvi Vs Circle – 26 (1) Raj Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabcv7389R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92Section 92B

have also the benefit of the assessment order for A.Y.2016-17 in which year also the Assessing Officer has considered the directions of the DRP for A.Y.2011-12 [year under appeal] and the directions of the Additional CIT u/s. 144 of the Act for A.Y.2015-16. 18. Considering the order

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2014/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92F

Dispute Resolution Panel (for short ‘DRP’). The DRP vide order dated 15/12/2016 directed the A.O/TPO to complete the assessment as per the directions of the DRP. The Ld. A.O. vide order dated 30/01/2017 passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C (4) of the Act by reducing

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-4, Bangalore

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

ITA 2588/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr

Megasoft Limited and there is no decision of DRP regarding other comparable companies. ……………… ……………... 5. From the above Para reproduced, from the directions of the DRP, it is seen that the decision of DRP is with regard to only 2 comparable companies i.e., Infosys Ltd., and Megasoft Ltd., whereas the assessee

M/S. Applied Materials India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2582/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri T. Suryanarayana

apply the rate of interest applicable to short term deposits as opposed to PLR adopted by the TPO. 2.17. On receipt if directions from the DRP, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order in which the TP adjustment came to be Page 14 IT(TP)A No. 2582/Bang/2019 reworked ... case of DCIT v. Electronics for Imaging India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any reason to interefere with the directions of the DRP on this issue. (iv) L&T Infotech Ltd. 19. ** ** ** We further find that the comparability of this company has been considered by the co-ordinate

Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(4), Mumbai

In the result assessment order dated 30

ITA 2142/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2142/मुं/ 2021 (िन.व. 2015-16) M/S. Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Wagle Estate P.O., Lbs Marg Thane 400604 Pan: Aaocs7144Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3(4) World Trade Centre, 29Th Floor ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Shri Hiten Chande "ितवाद" "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Vinod Tanwani सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2022 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2021 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Nishant Thakkar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits At The Outset That He Would Be Making Submissions Only On The Jurisdictional Issue

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148

order is time barred and the relaxation allowed under TOLA would not be applicable to the assessment order passed in consequence to the directions of the DRP. The dates and the events in the case of assessee and in the case of Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. are tabulated herein ... during Covid-19 pandemic the relaxation allowed by the Special Act TOLA would apply to the assessment order passed in pursuant to the directions of the DRP? This issue has been examined by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. (supra

Torrent Petrochem Ltd( Presently Known As Blue Cross Road Solutions Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Transfer Pricing 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7373/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri.DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

assessee has filed the appeal against the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act in pursuance to the directions of the DRP u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 28.08.2009. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Torrent Petrochem ltd.,, Mumbai. The company Blue ... were dismissed in limine and the DRP has passed the order u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 28.08.2019. The A.O. considering the directions of the DRP, has passed the final Assesseement order observing at page 6 Para 9 as under: 9. The order u/s 92CA

Owens-Corning(Singapore)Pte.Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (Internatioal Taxation) Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6529/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Megha Shah, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Soumendu Kumar Dash, Sr. DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

between India and Singapore. 12. Against this order assessee preferred an appeal before us. We have gone through the order of the AO, directions of the DRP and objections/submissions taken by assessee before various authorities below. We have gone through the process as explained by assessee through illustration also

Swiss Re Services India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed protanto

ITA 1898/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1898/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2010-11) M/S. Swiss Re Services India P. Ltd. Unit 701-702, Peninsula Corporate Park Tower A, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aahcs5626E बनाम Vs. Dcit, Circle 2(3)(2) Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent M K Marg, Mumbai 400020 अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv& Shri Hiten Chande, Adv ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Akhtar Ansari, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Adv&For Respondent: Shri Akhtar Ansari, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)

comparables considered, the TPO is directed to exclude such income from operating income of the comparables to maintain consistency. The TPO followed the directions of the DRP. The assessee before us has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Petro Araldite

Dboi Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, Nationa E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1263/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd [ Formerly Dboi Global Services Addl/Jt/Dy/Assit/Cit/Ito, Ltd] Block B-4, Level-6, National E-Assessment Vs. Nirlon Knowledge Park, Centre, New Delhi-110 003 Western Express Highway, Goregoan East, Mumbai-400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2953L

For Appellant: Shri Jehnagir D. MistriFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 155JSection 234BSection 234C

under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pursuant to the directions of the DRP, erred in rejecting the appellant‟s claim for deduction on account of Education Cess and Higher DBOI Global Services Private Limited

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

adjustment was reduced to Rs.11,45,97,470. The assessee is in appeal against the final assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 are general not warranting separate adjudication. Grounds 3 to 17 pertaining to TP adjustment are as extracted below – “Transfer Pricing