Ms. Sushma Nagaraj, with Mr. Abhinav Palsikar, Advocates

for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

Judgment Reserved On : 16th September, 2025

Judgment Pronounced On: 10th October, 2025

JUDGMENT (PER Amit Satyavan Jamsandekar, J ).

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.

2. By the present Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Petitioner is challenging the inaction of the Respondents of not giving effect to the directions dated 19th March 2020 of the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) and consequently not processing the refund claim of the Petitioner. The directions were given by the DRP to the 1st Respondent under Section 144(C)(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).

3. The main issue raised in the petition is the effect of not completing the assessment within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the Assessing Officer receives such directions from the DRP under Section 144(C) (5) of the Act. According to the Petitioner, if the Assessing Officer fails to complete the assessment within the time frame as prescribed by Section 144 (C) (13), the transfer pricing addition ought to be treated as non est on the ground that it becomes time barred.

4. The facts and circumstances relating to the dispute, which is the subject matter of the present Petition, are as follows:-

(i) The Petitioner filed its Return of Income for AY 2010-2011 on 14th October, 2010. In the said Return of Income, the Petitioner declared its total income as Rs.78,58,40,928.00. The Petitioner claimed a refund of Rs.3,32,90,793.00 arising out of (a) tax deducted at source of Rs.60,49,110.00; and (b) advance tax paid of Rs. 29,51,10,000.00.

(ii) The Return of Income filed by the Petitioner was selected for a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2)

of the Act. The order to that effect was passed on 21st September, 2011.

(iii) During the assessment proceedings, a reference was made to the 2nd Respondent, to determine the Arm’s length price of the international transactions entered into by the Petitioner. The transfer pricing proceedings culminated in an order dated 28th January, 2014, under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. By the said order, the 2nd Respondent proposed a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.5,26,86,111.00, which was concerning the ‘Corporate Service Charges’.

(iv) On 26th February, 2014, the Petitioner filed a submission before the 1st Respondent, by which the Petitioner claimed depreciation on intangibles and challenged the disallowance made under Section 14(A) of the Act. The Petitioner further claimed depreciation on goodwill.

(v) Thereafter, on 12th March, 2014, the 1st Respondent issued a draft assessment order under Section 144 C (1) of the Act. By the draft assessment order, the 1st Respondent computed the total income at Rs.89,46,03,871/- as against the Return of Income of

Rs.78,58,40,928/-. By the draft assessment order dated 12th March, 2014, the 1st Respondent proposed additional disallowances to the Petitioner’s Return of Income. By the draft assessment order, the 1st Respondent also did not allow a depreciation claim on goodwill, which was made by the petitioner vide the letter dated 26th February, 2014.

(vi) The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the draft assessment order dated 12th March, 2014, filed its objections before the DRP under Section 144 C (2) of the Act. The Petitioner also filed additional grounds of challenge/objections to the draft assessment order before the DRP.

(vii) On 13th November, 2014, the DRP provided its directions in accordance with the provisions of Section 144 C (5) of the Act. The DRP, in its directions, allowed the depreciation on goodwill claimed by the Petitioner. Further, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the direction as per the provisions of Section 144 C (13) of the Act.

(viii) Thereafter, the 1st Respondent, on 31st December, 201