← 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 Software Paradigms Infotech Private Limited, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

ITA 2828/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2828/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Software Paradigms The Assistant Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 316-318, Spi City, Income Tax, Hebbal Industrial Area, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru – 570016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aalcs7583C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.S. Prashanth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 24.10.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 1 (1), Mysuru U/S. 143(3) R.W. 92Ca R.W. 144C(5) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Tpo / Drp / Assessing Officer In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself To Be Assessed On A Total Income Of Rs. 10,50,75,429/- As Against Income Of Rs. 6,77,58,220/- As Declared By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

objections before the DRP and the DRP directions to exclude ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. for functional dissimilarities under SWD segment. Based on the directions of the DRP, the Ld.AO passed the final order of assessment. To the extent the Assessee did not get relief from the DRP. The DRP proposed

M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2695/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2695/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Finastra Software Solutions (India) Vs. The Acit, Private Limited, Circle - 4(1)(2), [Formerly Known As Misys Software Solutions Bengaluru. (India) Pvt. Ltd.,], 4Th To 6Th Floor, North Tower, Virgo Building, Bagmane Constellation, Bengaluru – 500 037. Pan : Aaack 9067 G Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Arunkumar, Cit(Tp-2)(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 06.10.2017 Of Acit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Ay 2013-2014. 2. The Issue That Arises For Consideration In The Above Appeal Pertains To The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment (“Tp Adjustment”) Of Rs.14,33,66,140/- Made By The Transfer Pricing Officer (‘The Tpo’ For Short) Towards The International Transactions Of Provision Of Software Development Services (Rs.13,56,24,957/-) & Information Technology Enabled Services

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Arunkumar, CIT(TP-2)(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 92

No.2695/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 20 which, vide its directions dated 08.09.2017, partly allowed the assessee objections. 6. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 06.10.2017 in which the TP adjustment was reworked to Rs.15,49,23,283/-. Aggrieved by the DRP ... Larsen and Toubro Infotech Ltd. 4 Mindtree Ltd. (seg.) 5 Persistent Systems Ltd. 6 RS Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. 12. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed a final assessment order wherein the TP adjustment stood reworked in terms of the DRP’s directions. Aggrieved

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

DRP which, vide its directions dated 10.12.2014. granted partial relief to the Assessee by accepting some of its contentions. 5. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.01.2015. As per the directions of the DRP, the aggregate TP adjustment was reworked ... Software (India) Ltd. 6.54 5 Thinksoft Global Services Ltd. 17.05 6.83 Arithmetical Mean 20.41 10.45 13. Aggrieved by the direction of the DRP to the extent it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the assessee respectively, these cross appeals have been filed. 14. As far as Revenue

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

DRP which, vide its directions dated 10.12.2014. granted partial relief to the Assessee by accepting some of its contentions. 5. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 30.01.2015. As per the directions of the DRP, the aggregate TP adjustment was reworked ... Software (India) Ltd. 6.54 5 Thinksoft Global Services Ltd. 17.05 6.83 Arithmetical Mean 20.41 10.45 13. Aggrieved by the direction of the DRP to the extent it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the assessee respectively, these cross appeals have been filed. 14. As far as Revenue

Astro Offshore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. DCIT, Int. Tax. Circle-1(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 192/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Judcial Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(4)(b)Section 147Section 148

submitted, once the objection was filed before learned DRP, the Assessing Officer had no option but to wait for the directions of learned DRP before passing the final assessment order. She submitted, since the learned DRP gave directions vide order dated 11.12.2020, the final assessment order passed ... assessee filed objections before learned DRP, i.e., on 27.01.2020 and the Assessing Officer had no other option but to wait for the directions of the DRP, in our view, is unacceptable and has to be rejected at the threshold. A combined reading of the provisions contained under Section 144C

Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

ITA 508/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

preferred an objection before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel that passed its direction on 24th December 2020. In para No. 7.5.1 of the direction, the ld. DRP noted that if the Revenue has not filed an appeal against the order of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case ... income nor an expense of the assessee. With respect to the comparables, he reiterated his arguments already advanced. He submitted that the binding directions of the DRP are not followed by the ld. TPO. 22 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities

Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

Accordingly, ITA number 508/del/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed

ITA 507/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

preferred an objection before the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel that passed its direction on 24th December 2020. In para No. 7.5.1 of the direction, the ld. DRP noted that if the Revenue has not filed an appeal against the order of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case ... income nor an expense of the assessee. With respect to the comparables, he reiterated his arguments already advanced. He submitted that the binding directions of the DRP are not followed by the ld. TPO. 22 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 653/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 652/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 651/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 650/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 649/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 648/DEL/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 647/DEL/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea vs. DCIT Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 646/DEL/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

that after completion of assessment proceedings, on perusal of the records, it was noticed that the Assessing Officer did not follow the correct directions of the DRP in so far as the attribution of PE is concerned and assessed the income of the captioned Assessment Years at a lesser rate ... 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

Bertelsmann Marketing Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6577/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Majorel India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (“Company”) (Earlier Known Circle 4(2) As Bertelsmann Marketing New Delhi Services India Pvt. Ltd.)215, Second Floor, Suneja Tower- Ii, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi Aabcb8378G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv & Sh. Yishu Goel, Adv Respondent By Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2021

Section 144CSection 271Section 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

LIBOR+ 400 basis points as rate of interest) Total 8,65,80,474 1,57,59,899 The Assessing Officer, pursuant to the directions of the DRP completed the assessment incorporating the addition of Rs. 1,47,59,899/- to the return of income vide order dated 28.10.2016. 4. Being ... comparing the ALP margin of comparable companies. 12. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the TPO/AO and the directions of the DRP. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. Since we have already accepted the ground

DCIT, Circle- 24(2), New Delhi vs. Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 7733/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. SDinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 153Section 254

assessment in terms of such directions without giving any further hearing to the assessee. Thus, at the level of the Assessing Officer, the directions of the DRP under sub-section (5) of Section 144C would bind even the assessee. He may of course challenge the order of the Assessing Officer

At & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) - National E-Assesment Order, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 489/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)

payment of royalty On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO (in pursuant to the directions of the DRP), erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by INR 17,64,30,505 and holding that the international transaction pertaining to payment

Kehin Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5189/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

factual matrix of the case remains the same for this AY also. So there is no reason to differ from the above direction of the DRP. The TPO has provided for the underutilization of capacity by adjustment in depreciation. The order of the TPO is upheld on this issue ... base of the assessee bear to the total operating cost of the assessee i.e. 77.84%.” 15. It can be seen from the above directions of the DRP that it has simply followed the directions given by it in A.Y 2013-14, which quarrel travelled upto this Tribunal

Sumitomo Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1881/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 5

decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Rolls Royce. The objection is disposed off as above. 29. The directions of the DRP in respect of computation of capital gain the DRP has held the Rule 11 UA (1) (c) (ii) of I.T. Rules is applicable for income from