“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

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 1901/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri R.E Balasubramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT(DR)

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

Bengaluru u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income-tax Act (the Act) dated 28/07/2017 passed in pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 16/06/2017. IT(TP)A No.1901/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 28 2. The assessee raised the following grounds:- “1.That the order ... revenue in nature and sustained the addition of Rs.18,12,617 being capital. 8. The AO passed final order giving effect to the direction of the DRP. The assessee is now in appeal before us aggrieved by the final order of the AO passed in accordance with the directions

Ids Software Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.537/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Ids Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Vs. Shabari Complex, Ground Floor, Fo Cabin, No.8, Circle – 3(1)(1), Field Marshal Cariappa Road, Ashok Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. Pan : Aabci 243O G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

price received (shortfall exceeding 5%) 1,02,16,215 13. Aggrieved by the Final Order of Assessment passed by the AO incorporating the directions of the DRP, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The only effective ground in the present appeal is Ground

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Bengaluru – 7, Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.2042/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vee Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.71, Sona Towers, Millers Road, Ward – 7[1][2], Bengaluru – 560 052. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 0100 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Suresh Muthukrishna, CA, to file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP gave its direction on 28.05.2019. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment dated 26.7.2019 against which the Assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal which is ITA No.2042/Bang/2019 ... Assessment Order was passed on 31.08.2018 and the DRP gave its directions on the objections of the assessee on 26.07.2019. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final order of assessment dated 26.7.2019 against which the Assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal which

M/S. N. Ranga Rao & Sons, Mysuru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mysuru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 4A(2)(b)

Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act], pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 19.9.2019 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Learned Assessing Officer erred

M/S. Vee Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2042/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Morgan Stanley Solutions India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 626/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemorgan Stanley Advantage Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Circle – 9(2) {Successor To Morgan Stanley Solutions Room No. 261, 2Nd Floor India Pvt. Ltd.,} Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Antena Building No.5 Mumbai - 400020 Sector 30, Mindspace, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400090 Pan: Aadcm7403M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Tajendra Pal SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Sunil M. Lala

Section 144C(5)Section 234D

Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of the DRP, erred in making an upward adjustment of Rs 3,34,57,335 in determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the international ... referred to as ITES) rendered by the Appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO, based on the directions of the DRP, erred on the following grounds: 2.1. In rejecting the transfer pricing (TP) analysis undertaken by the Appellant for computing the ALP in relation

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

they formed part of the Ld. TPO’s search matrix. 9. The AO passed the Final Order of Assessment giving effect to the directions of the DRP. To the extent, the assessee aggrieved by the Final Order of Assessment, the assessee has raised concise ground Nos.3 to 6 before ... before the lower authorities, and valuation was done arbitrarily without any technical study. 26. Aggrieved by the order of the AO incorporating the directions of the DRP refusing depreciation on Goodwill, the assessee has raised Grd. No.13.1 to 13.4 before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee

M/S. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2209/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40Section 40aSection 92C

dated 11/08/2016 granted marginal relief to the assessee and largely upheld the draft assessment order. Page 4 of 25 7. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, final asst. order was passed by the AO dated 30.09.2016. 8. Aggrieved by the final asst. order, the assessee filed this appeal before

M/S. Radisys India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2482/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2482/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Radisys India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, 6Th Floor, Electra Wing B, Exora Business Park, Circle - 5(1)(1), Sarjapur, Bengaluru. Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccc 3169 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahaveer C Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Mahaveer C Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, 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

Esm Group Inc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2343/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Dash, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Swain, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

case of Rolls Royce Vs DDIT, the Assessing Officer attributed Rs. 77,514/- to the income of the assessee. 11. Further, following the directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer treated the amount received from RINL and SAIl as taxable

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Esm Group Inc. Suite, Usa

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

ITA 1644/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Dash, CAFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Swain, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Bateman Engineering (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 749/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2016 Assessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)

grounds read as under: “6. Notwithstanding the above grounds, the learned TPO/AO erred in not passing an appropriate order giving effect to the directions of the DRP, consequently performing an adjustment to the extent of INR 75,27,169. The learned TPO erred in considering the working capital adjustment

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Bateman Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 469/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.469/Bang/2016 Assessmentyear: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1364/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1 V. Plot No.21, Bidadi Industrial Area Bangalore. Bidadi, Ramangara District – 562 109. Pan : Aabct5590Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Assessing Officer. The It(T)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arises Out Of A.O’S Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act, (Order Dated 29.07.2016). The It(Tp)A No.1364/Bang/2017 Arises Out Of The A.O.’S Order Passed U/S 154 (Order Dated 31.01.2011). The A.O. After Passing The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Passed Rectification Order U/S 154 Of The Act Giving Effect To The Order Passed By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) In Determining The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Adjustment From Rs.37,24,00,000, To Rs.39,13,10,000, Hence Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2 It(Tp)A Nos.1714/B/2016 & 1364/Bang/2017 M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Private Limited. 2. The Grounds Raised For Both The Appeals Are Identical. The Assessee Has Also Filed Additional Ground Vide Letter Dated 27.11.2021.The Additional Grounds Are Essentially, Shades Of Grounds Raised In Form No.36. The Additional Grounds Are Legal Grounds Supported By Judicial Pronouncements & Does Not Require Examination Of New Facts Other Than On Record. Hence, The Additional Grounds Raised Are Taken On Record For Adjudication. We Shall First Adjudicate It(Tp)A No.1714/Bang/2016 Arising Out Of The Order Of The A.O. Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

novo consideration. 6. The learned Departmental Representative has filed a brief written submission essentially supporting the TPO’s order and the directions of the DRP. As regards the remitting the issue of TP adjustment and corporate tax to AO / TPO for fresh examination, the learned DR did not have

M/S.Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., Ramanagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1714/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 92C

De Daimond Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Rewari vs. Jt.CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 600/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.600/Del/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Gravit Gosain, AdvFor Respondent: 29.11.2021

Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

assessee and to provide the details of working capital computations and after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to carry out the directions of the DRP for granting working capital adjustment. We order accordingly. Grounds are allowed for statistical purpose. 27. Ground no. 6.1 of grounds of appeal which relates ... computing the income of the assessee. DR has no objection in directing the AO to carry out the directions of the DRP. 28. Considering the rival submissions, we direct the AO to carry out the DRP directions and allow R&D cess as an admissible expense and compute the income

Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Core Objects India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 682/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

proposal to disallow depreciation claimed on computer software. The proposal to disallow provision for rent came to be upheld. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 29.01.2016 in which the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 1,00,46,453/-. Aggrieved ... Name of the Company 1 Persistent Systems & Solutions Ltd. 2 Persistent Systems Ltd. 3 Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 1,00,646,453/- in the final assessment order dated 28.12.2018. 12. Against the final Order of Assessment

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5022/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

business decisions benefitting the parent AE. The panel directs as above. The objections are disposed of as above.” 8. After referring to the directions of the DRP for Assessment Year 2007-08, the ld. CIT observed that instead of cost plus 10% offered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer ... salary attributable to Indian operation though the DRP did not reduce to 20%. 9. However, the Assessing Officer, while complying with the directions of the DRP, computed the cost plus 20% but reduced attribution of salary to 25%. The ld. CIT was of the firm belief that when the assessee

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5021/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)