← 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 Ingersoll-Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 728/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

upheld the adjustment made by the TP Officer towards reimbursement of expenses. 5. The AO passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP. The assessee aggrieved by the final assessment order is in appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A Nos.728/Bang/2017 Page

M/S. Hp Computing and Printing Systems India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234B

adjustment of Rs.38,06,94,036, which was IT(TP)A No.193/2022 Page 3 of 4 subsequently rectified by the TPO on the directions of the DRP making NIL adjustment towards the ALP. The AO passed the final assessment order accordingly. However, the AO considered the total income

On Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 291/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

DRP directed the TPO to compute the adjustment on the basis of invoice-wise realization and period of delay. Based on the above directions of the DRP, the TPO reduced the adjustment on account of interest on receivables to Rs.7,68,976. 9. Though several grounds are raised, the learned

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2788/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

binding on t shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. Sub-section (13) thereafter section (13) thereafter states that upon receipt of the directions of the DRP, the Assessing states that upon receipt of the directions of the DRP, the Assessing states that upon receipt of the directions

Lanxess India P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

ITA 2628/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Lanxess India Private Limited, Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, Circle 1, Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Vs. 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. College, Midc, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-(West)-400604. Thane. Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lanxess India Private Limited, Circle 1, Lanxess House, Plot No. 162-164, 6Th Floor, Asher It Park, Road No. 16- Vs. Road No. 27, Wagle Estate, Opp. Iti Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, College, Midc, Thane. Thane-(West)-400604 Pan No. Aaccb 3880 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pratik Shah/For Respondent: Mr. V.K. Agarwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

binding on t shall be binding on the Assessing Officer. Sub-section (13) thereafter section (13) thereafter states that upon receipt of the directions of the DRP, the Assessing states that upon receipt of the directions of the DRP, the Assessing states that upon receipt of the directions

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)

primary contention of the ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee is that the TPO had made adjustment of Rs.1,22,62,124/-. After the directions of the DRP there was enhancement in adjustment. The Assessing Officer in compliance of the direction of DRP made adjustment of Rs.4

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables at the rate equal to 4.3087% on receivables that exceeded 90 days as per the directions of the DRP. It has been argued by Ld.AR that authorities below disregarded business/commercial arrangement between the assessee and its AE’s, by holding outstanding receivables

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Respectfully following the above, we direct the Ld.TPO to compute the interest on receivables based on the principle enunciated hereinabove. The directions of the DRP of granting credit period of 90 days is to be granted for year under consideration. In the event, it is found that the interest

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 143(3)

April 2021. However, the TPO has not provided any workings for computation of the notional interest on delayed receivables to determine whether the directions of the DRP to compute interest on a Invoice-by-invoice basis has been followed and accordingly the issue is remitted to AO/TPO for fresh consideration

Vena Energy Patan Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 198/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

above. With regard to pre-operative expenses, the DRP reduced the amount of disallowance to Rs.9,45,270. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. TP adjustment towards interest on issue

Vena Energy Mh Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 197/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

above. With regard to pre-operative expenses, the DRP reduced the amount of disallowance to Rs.9,45,270. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. TP adjustment towards interest on issue

Vena Energy Fatanpur Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 196/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

above. With regard to pre-operative expenses, the DRP reduced the amount of disallowance to Rs.9,45,270. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. TP adjustment towards interest on issue

Vena Energy Kn Wind Power Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 195/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

above. With regard to pre-operative expenses, the DRP reduced the amount of disallowance to Rs.9,45,270. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. TP adjustment towards interest on issue

Owens Corning Inc., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 741/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla a/wFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

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 A.O. to delete the addition.” 12. Similarly, another Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in Owens Corning

M Pallonji Shipping P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5875/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem.Pallonji Shipping Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(2)(2) Ltd.46A Veetrag Mumbai Chambers, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm4615L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dr.K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Dr.K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Ms.Vatslaaa Jha.CIT.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

findings of the TPO has issued the directions and passed the order u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 30.06.2017. Based on the directions of the DRP, the AO has passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act determining the total income which includes TP adjustment

M/S Harman International (India) Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 49/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.49/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income Tax, 4A, Jupiter, Prestige Technology Park, Circle - 3(1)(2), Sarjapur, Marathahalli Road, Bengaluru. Kadubeesanahalli Village, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan: Aacch 1585 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

objections to a large extent while granting marginal relief. IT(TP)A No. 49/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 31 7. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.10.2018 in which the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 16,75,21,761/-. The other ... DRP issued the following directions to the TPO: IT(TP)A No. 49/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 31 The following companies were directed by the DRP to be excluded from the list of comparables by accepting the contentions of the assessee: (i) Cigniti Technologies Ltd.; and (ii) SQS India

M/S Rittal India Pvt Ltd, Doddaballapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

Delhi HC) Accordingly, based on above discussion the ground raised by the assessee is rejected.” 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions of the DRP, the assessee has raised Ground No.2 before the Tribunal. 9. In an earlier hearing, the ld.DR was asked to clarify the basis of which

Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1353/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

Rules, and attempting to question findings of fact and law drawn by the DRP”. It was also pointed out that the directions of the DRP were made non-appealable specifically “in line with the decision of the Government to minimize litigation”, and that, by filing the present petition, which seeks

Sp Armada Oil Exploration P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-3(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1352/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

Rules, and attempting to question findings of fact and law drawn by the DRP”. It was also pointed out that the directions of the DRP were made non-appealable specifically “in line with the decision of the Government to minimize litigation”, and that, by filing the present petition, which seeks

Binod Kumar Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 18 & 19, Mumbai

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

ITA 1479/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.7721/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2008-09) आअसं.1429/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 Pan: Aabcs1728D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent आअसं.1178/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2009-10) The Acit, Central Circle-20, Room No. 402, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd.), Interface Building 7, 4Th Floor, Malad Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400064 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabcs1728D

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala,Sr.Advocate with Sh. HitenChandeFor Respondent: S/Sh. Vijay Kumar-CIT-DR and Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 37(1)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO, based on the directions of the DRP, erred in disallowing 81,25% of total expenditures on advertisement and sales promotion expenses amounting to Rs 61,73,45,428 (81.25% of 759,809,758)under section ... OutstandingReceivables from its Associated Enterprise 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of the DRP, erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment and thereby making an addition of Rs 19,71,02,811 to the income of the Appellant