← 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. Steer Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2071/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Steer Engineering Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, No.290, 4Th Main, 4Th Phase, Circle – 6(1)(2), Peenya Industrial Area, Nagawara, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 058. Pan : Aabcs 8840 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Mrs. Susan D. George, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92(1)Section 92ASection 92A(1)Section 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92F

enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. In case the Assessee chooses not to filed objections before the DRP to the draft assessment order within the time required u/s.144C

Tarkett Flooring India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 201/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.201/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Tarkett Flooring India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. No.460, 2Nd Cross, Circle – 7(1)(1), Krishna Temple Road, Bengaluru. Binnamangala 1St Stage, Bengaluru-560 038. Pan : Aadct 9947 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Sumeet Khuranna, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

result in any relief to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the final order of Assessment passed by the AO as per the directions of the DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order of the National

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

determination of ALP was added to the total income of the Assessee by the AO. The DRP gave certain directions. Based on the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from the DRP, the Assessee

Epson India Private Limited, Ulsoor vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

filed objections before the dispute resolution panel (DRP). The DRP wide direction dated 15.02.2021 upheld the action of the TPO. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP the AO passed final assessment order. Aggrieved by the final assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

appreciate that revisionary power u/s 263 of the Act does not cover orders passed by the Assessing Officer in conformity with the directions of the DRP under Section 144C of the Act. 3 A.Y. 2014-15 1.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... draft order, notwithstanding that such matter was raised or not by the eligible assessee. Section 144C(13) provides that upon receipt of the directions issued by DRP, the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the Appellant

M/S. Nsl Sugars Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 262/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.262/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Nsl Sugars Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of 60/1, 2Nd Cross V. Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) Residency Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aagcs0938Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2022 Pronouncement : 08.04.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Am : This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Dcit Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 30.04.2021 For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. Brief Facts Of The Case 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Sugar & Molasses Etc. It Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-2017 On 30.11.2016 With Returned Loss Of Rs.78,24,50,827. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. Reference Was Made To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) For Determination Of Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Specified Domestic Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee. The Tpo Passed An Order U/S 92Ca On 30.10.2019 Proposing The Adjustment Of Rs.96,57,60,845. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Passed A Draft Assessment Order On 23.12.2019 Incorporating The Tp Adjustment Proposed By The Tpo. In Addition, The Ao

For Appellant: Sri.T.Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunatha Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43BSection 92C

sustained the additions made by the AO on the corporate tax issue. The AO passed the final assessment order giving effect to the directions of the DRP. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised several grounds contending

Xerox Business Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 361/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 144C(6)Section 92C

assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.12.2015 in consequence to the directions of the DRP, Bangalore under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 29.10.2015. 2 IT(TP)A No. 361 & 202/Bang/2016 M/s. Conduent Business Services India

Asst.CIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xerox Business Services of India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 202/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 144C(6)Section 92C

assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.12.2015 in consequence to the directions of the DRP, Bangalore under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 29.10.2015. 2 IT(TP)A No. 361 & 202/Bang/2016 M/s. Conduent Business Services India

Anz Support Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92BSection 92B(1)Section 92C

State Bank of India short term deposit rate for computing the interest. The AO passed the final order giving effect to the directions of the DRP. 5. The issue for consideration is determining the transfer pricing adjustment on account of the interest on outstanding receivables amounting to Rs.2

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

also upheld the action of the TPO of applying interest at the rate of 14.18% being the SBI PLR. 7.3 Based on the directions of the DRP, the addition in respect of the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.548,04,95,014 towards interest on loans extended ... rate adopted, the DRP has accepted the contentions of the TPO and confirmed the rate of 3%. 8.3 Based on the directions of the DRP, the final assessment was passed retaining the addition in respect of corporate guarantee fee at Rs.122,24,28,300. 8.4 Aggrieved, the assessee has raised

M/S Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Page 2 of 36 IT(TP)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Jurisdictional Ground 1. The order of the learned AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP, to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Grounds relating to transfer pricing matters: General grounds ... learned AO, based on directions of the DRP, erred in assessing the total income of TFSIPL at INR 277,581,895 as against the returned income of 'Nil' as computed by the Appellant. 3. The learned AO / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") / DRP erred in making an addition

Hp India Sales Private Limited (Formerly Known As Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 779/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

deferred revenue / Cost) and hence DRP did not issue any directions. The AO issued a final assessment order based on the directions of the DRP. In the final assessment order the AO retained the disallowance made u/s 40a(ia) and the observations made towards deferred revenue expenditure. There was mistake

M/S Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 649/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154

sustained the adjustment made towards manufacturing segment. The AO passed the final assessment order giving effect to the TP adjustment as per the directions of the DRP. 4. Aggrieved by the final order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee raised seven grounds ... case for earlier asst. year had rejected the request for grant of adjustment. 8. The AO passed the final assessment order considered directions of the DRP 9. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that from harmonies reading of sub clause (iii) to clause (e) of Rule 10B and sub Rule

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

enable him to complete the assessment after considering report of TPO. The AO passes a final assessment order on the basis of directions of the DRP. 9. The legislative intent in introducing the new transfer pricing legislation, as available in the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill ... dated 10.01.2018, rejected most of the assessee’s objections insofar as the TP adjustments made by the TPO were concerned. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.11.2018 in which the TP adjustment was reworked

M/S. Capco Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2436/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

No.2436/Bang/2019 M/s. Capco Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Page 5 of 18 the AO. The DRP gave certain directions. Based on the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the assessee did not get relief from the DRP, the assessee has preferred appeal before

Ingersoll Rand Technologies and Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri , CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Income-tax Act (the Act) dated 27/11/2015 passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1). The order is in pursuant to the directions of the DRP vide order dated 14/10/2015. IT(TP)A No.89/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 13 The brief facts of the case 2. The assessee (earlier known ... DRP who confirmed the additions made by the AO and also the TP adjustments. The final order was passed in pursuant to the directions of the DRP. The assessee is in appeal before us against the final order. 3. The assessee raised six grounds pertaining to transfer pricing adjustments

Accenture Solution Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7457/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7457/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2014-15 ) Accenture Solutions Private Limited(‘Asol) [As A Successor To Accenture Services Private Limited (“Aspl”) Which Has Merged Into Asol With An Effective Date Of 1 December 2016] Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 079. Pan: Aaach-3235-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate With Shri Hiten Chande ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat Cit Dr & Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat CIT DR &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP issued directions dated 04/09/2018 in the correct name i.e. M/s. Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Consequent to the directions of the DRP the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order 4 dated 29/10/2018. The final assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer ... amalgamation is not disputed by the Department and it is also evident from the draft assessment order, the final assessment order and the directions of the DRP that the Department was aware about the fact of aforesaid amalgamation. The DRP had issued directions dated 04/09/2018 in the name of successor

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7286/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledhl Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit – 9(3)(1) 201A, Silver Utopia, Room No. 215, Cardinal Gracias Road 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Chakala, Andheri (E) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400099 Mumbai – 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6824A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat.CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92D

orders on similar disputs has issued directions in respect of the comparables and partly allowed the objections of the assessee. As per the directions of the DRP, the AO has determined the total income with TP adjustments and disallowance of depreciation on goodwill and DHL Logistics P Ltd, Mumbai. assessed

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

aggregate TP adjustment to Rs.11,96,99,769. The A.O. passed rectification order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act giving effect to the revised directions of the DRP. An appeal has been filed before the Tribunal against the order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act also. 3. The learned AR during

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

aggregate TP adjustment to Rs.11,96,99,769. The A.O. passed rectification order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act giving effect to the revised directions of the DRP. An appeal has been filed before the Tribunal against the order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act also. 3. The learned AR during