← 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

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 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

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 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

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 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

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

Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 178/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.178/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Aurigo Software Technologies Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ajmera Aditya Summit, No.3D1, Ground Floor, Ward-1(1)(1), 7Th C Main Road, 3Rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 034. Pan : Aacca 5309 D Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

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

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

directed the Ld.AO to verify the same. 5. The Ld.AO passed the final assessment order on 30.10.2019 to give effect to the directions of the DRP. The Ld.AO after verification disallowed the depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs 6,08,69,744/-. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee

Dsv Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 922/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledvs Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional/Joint/ A-203, The Qube, Cts Assistant No. 1489, Mv Road, Commissioner Of Marol, Andheri East, Income Tax, National Mumbai – 400059. E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5306L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Karishmaprataphekar.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.KarishmaPrataphekar.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

Further, the A.O. has passed the final assessment order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 92CA r.w.s 143(3) of the Act as per the directions of the DRP and assessed the total income of Rs.52,79,91,336/- on 26.03.2021. Aggrieved by the A.O. order, the assessee has filed an appeal

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Mol Corporation, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Uppal AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 234B

Regional Sales Corporation and MOL Corporation, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The common grievance in both the appeals relates to the directions of the DRP to delete interest u/s 234B of the Act. 3. Since the underlying facts in issues are common in both these appeals, they were ... brevity. 4. The ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the directions of the DRP. 5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that the interest levied u/s 234B

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S. Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation, Gurgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 2096/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Uppal AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 234B

Regional Sales Corporation and MOL Corporation, pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The common grievance in both the appeals relates to the directions of the DRP to delete interest u/s 234B of the Act. 3. Since the underlying facts in issues are common in both these appeals, they were ... brevity. 4. The ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the directions of the DRP. 5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that the interest levied u/s 234B

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1146/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiemens Ltd (Successor Vs. Dcit, In Interest To Siemens Corporate Circle - Building Technologies 8(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,) Room No. 615, 6Th Birla Aurora, Level 20, Floor, Aayakar P.No. 1080, Ar. Annie Bhavan, Mk Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs0764L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in pursuance to the directions of the DRP. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal on the (i) transfer pricing adjustments (ii) Corporate Tax Siemens Ltd., Mumbai. adjustments

Swiss Re Global Business Solutions India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)

length margin, he made a TP adjustment u/s. 92CA of the Act in respect of ITeS of Rs.11,12,75,839. After the directions of the DRP, the AO made a TP adjustment of Rs.12,01,06,252 in the final assessment order. Against this, the assessee is in appeal ... Software Exports Ltd. accordingly. 34. With regard to inclusion of Hartron Communications Ltd., according to the assessee, the TPO has not followed the directions of the DRP. We find no merit in this argument of the ld. AR. During the course of DRP proceedings the assessee has submitted that

Cisco Systems Services B.V, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

961/Bang/2017 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and based on the directions of the DRP: A. Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 1. The learned AO has erred in law and in fact. by not considering the plea

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

relevant previous year, from both the Export turnover and Total turnover of Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit), without properly appreciating the directions of the DRP. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not considering the above mentioned export proceeds

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

relevant previous year, from both the Export turnover and Total turnover of Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit), without properly appreciating the directions of the DRP. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not considering the above mentioned export proceeds

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

relevant previous year, from both the Export turnover and Total turnover of Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit), without properly appreciating the directions of the DRP. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not considering the above mentioned export proceeds

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

relevant previous year, from both the Export turnover and Total turnover of Bangalore BPO unit (10A unit), without properly appreciating the directions of the DRP. 3.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by not considering the above mentioned export proceeds

Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 873/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144B

correct the inaccuracies in the computation of margins of comparable companies while determining the proposed adjustment.” 9. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the TPO passed order dated 26.04.2021 giving effect to the DRP directions as under: Adjustment Issue Amount [Rs.] TPO 4,85.11,004/- (i) The TPO held ... month LIBOR + 400 basis points is being considered the Arms length interest rate i.e. 4,609% as calculated below. 10. As per the directions of the DRP, in the final set of comparables, Hicks Thermometer [India] Pvt Ltd was included and EDCIL [India] Ltd was excluded. However, we find that

Cenduit (India) Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

following amended grounds :- “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and based on the directions of the DRP: 1. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts, in assessing the total income at INR 14,34,58,717/-as against returned income ... Technologies India Pvt Ltd 5. 56.44% Eclerx Services Ltd. 6. 20.44% 35 Percentile 23.44% Median 26.44% 65 Percentile 10. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, while there was no variation in the ITeS segment, the TPO revised the margin computation of the comparable companies in the IT Services

Nomura Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2303/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenomura Services India Vs. Dcit – Circle 10(3) Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 10Th Floor, Nomura, Mk Road, Off High Street, Mumbai – 400020. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400076. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl0053C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Faruk Irani & Mr Sumin Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mrs.Vatsala Jha. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance To Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act Dated 07.09.2012. Nomura Services India P Ltd., Mumbai. 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under:

For Appellant: Mr.Faruk Irani &For Respondent: Mrs.Vatsala Jha. DR
Section 143(3)

144C(5) of the Act dated 07.09.2012.The DRP has directed the TPO to rework the adjustments to the ALP. As per the directions of the DRP, the TPO has passed the order dated 24.01.2014 with reworking the adjustment to ALP at Rs 31,81,71,795/-The A.O. has determined

Gbt India Private Limited, Delhi vs. National E-Assesment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay application is accordingly held to be infructuous

ITA 462/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

reproduced hereunder wherein the DRP has taken note of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier year:- “ Decision and Directions of the DRP 3. The Panel has very carefully considered the grounds of objections and written and oral arguments made on behalf of the assessee. The decision ... record that no appeal has been preferred by the Department before the Hon’ble High Court and, therefore, the order of the direction of the DRP to delete the addition as the decision of the Tribunal is upheld. Accordingly, all the additions which have been challenged before us stand deleted

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate
Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

total taxable income of the Appellant notwithstanding a beneficial rate of 10% under DTAA.  The learned AO has erred in not following the directions of the DRP as per which a tax rate of 10% was to be levied on the total assessed income. 6. Interest under section 234A