This compilation indexes twelve income-tax rulings — ten from various benches of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and two from the Bombay High Court — in which Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was among the provisions centrally engaged. The rulings span February 2026 to July 2026 and arise predominantly in the context of transfer-pricing assessments, international taxation, and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) procedure. The compilation is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, citation-ready reference to recent judicial activity around draft assessment orders.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled from publicly available orders. It does not constitute legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional opinion. Readers must verify each ruling against the full judgment text and check for any subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on it for any purpose.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the Assessing Officer, before passing a final assessment order in the case of an "eligible assessee" (broadly, a person in whose case a transfer-pricing reference has been made or who is a foreign company), to first forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the assessee. The assessee may then either accept the draft — in which event the Assessing Officer passes the final order on that basis — or file objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel constituted under Section 144C(14). The remaining sub-sections of Section 144C set out the timeline and procedure for DRP objections (sub-section (2)), the DRP's powers to confirm, reduce, enhance, or set aside the proposed variation (sub-section (5)), and the Assessing Officer's obligation to pass the final order in conformity with the DRP's directions (sub-section (13)), among other requirements. The provision is therefore a procedural safeguard that sits at the intersection of transfer-pricing and international-taxation assessment procedure.

The 12 rulings

1. Indus Valley Partners (India) Private vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 29 July 2026
Sections engaged: 115J, 143(3), 144B, 144C(1), 144C(5), 170A, 92C
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed against the final assessment order dated 22.10.2024 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2021-22, pursuant to directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai under section 144C(5) dated 30.09.2024. Per the source preview, the draft assessment order had been passed on 22.12.2023 under section 144C(1) of the Act, and the ITA No. before the Tribunal is 6243/Mum/2024.

2. Kennametal India Limited ,Bangalore vs DCIT,Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 23 July 2026
Sections engaged: 92C, 144C(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal, registered as IT(TP)A No. 2564/Bang/2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22, involves transfer-pricing matters with multiple international transactions benchmarked using the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) and one using another method, as reflected in the source preview. The case engages section 92C alongside section 144C(1) in the context of the transfer-pricing assessment procedure.

3. Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Kuhu Properties Pvt. Ltd.) vs I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 13 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 143(2), 143(3), 144C(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal, registered as I.T.A. No. 686/Kol/2026 for Assessment Year 2018-19, was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 06.01.2026. Per the source preview, a legal issue was pressed by the assessee's authorised representative regarding a notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021 alleged to have been issued in the name of a non-existing company (the amalgamating entity), with the appellant being the successor company.

4. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd) vs Shivalik Power And Steel Private Limited

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Date: 9 July 2026
Sections engaged: 144C(1), 292B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Revenue appeal, ITA No. 496/RPR/2026, emanates from the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), Varanasi dated 20.03.2026 for the assessment year 2016-17. Per the source preview, the assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of S.G. Iron and C.I. Castings for the Indian Railways and automotive sectors, which had filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 10.09.2016; the case engages section 144C(1) alongside section 292B.

5. Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Limited vs ACIT Int Tax Cir-2(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(3), 144C(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed as ITA No. 9147/Mum/2025 along with SA 35/MUM/2026 for Assessment Year 2023-24 (PAN: AAACC5806F). Per the source preview, the appeal arises out of the final assessment order dated 15/10/2025 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Int. Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai.

6. Ceragon Networks India Private Limited vs DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 8 July 2026
Sections engaged: 144C(1), 144C(13)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal, ITA No. 5659/DEL/2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (PAN: AACCC3200F), raises a procedural ground concerning the Assessing Officer's conduct in passing the impugned final assessment order dated 24.10.2024 without giving effect to an order, where per the source preview the TPO had passed an order giving effect on 28.10.2024. The source preview notes that the Assessing Officer should have passed the order giving effect on receipt of the same from the TPO and incorporated it within the limitation period prescribed under section 144C.

7. Mr. Sonepal Singh Kohli, Mumbai vs ITO (Int Tax) 3(1)1, Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 147, 148, 144C(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was registered as ITA No. 8825/Mum/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 (PAN: BILPK0139E). Per the source preview, the assessee is a non-resident Indian stated to be residing in the USA since 2012 who did not file a return of income voluntarily; the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings after identifying transactions through the ITBA/Insight Portal, including a payment made to non-residents of Rs. 2,86,782/- among other transactions.

8. Marriott International Inc., Mumbai vs DCIT (International Taxation) 3(2)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 8 June 2026
Sections engaged: 143(3), 144C(1), 144C(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals, ITA Nos. 1622 & 1623/Mum/2021, relate to Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (PAN: AAECM8040K). Per the source preview, this is a case involving international taxation with the Tribunal bench also referencing multiple cited case-law authorities in the order; the appeal was filed against the assessment framed in the context of section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) and section 144C(3) of the Act.

9. Bunteler Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union Of India Thr The Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue & Ors.

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 21 April 2026
Sections engaged: 144C(1), 144C(5), 144C(13)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Writ Petition No. 10391 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court was disposed of finally with consent of counsel for both sides. Per the source preview, the petitioner is a manufacturer of automotive fasteners and connectors whose entire share capital is held by Bentler Automotive International GMBH, Germany; the petitioner had filed its return of income on 27.11.2016 disclosing income for Assessment Year 2016-17 as 'Nil', following which a notice under section 143(2) dated 01.08.2017 was issued and the case was thereafter referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer.

10. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -4 vs Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd.

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 12 March 2026
Sections engaged: 144C(1), 144C(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This Income Tax Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune against Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. Per the source preview, the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling packaging machines and systems and had entered into international transactions with its Associate Enterprises; the Transfer Pricing Officer had passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposing an outward adjustment of Rs. 7,47,09,000/- comprising transfer-pricing adjustments on account of international transactions relating to trading of packaging machinery and equipment.

11. Teejay India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 18 February 2026
Sections engaged: 92C, 144C(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal, I.T.A. No. 533/VIZ/2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (PAN: AAACO9452H), was directed against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act dated 30.10.2024. Per the source preview, the assessee-company is located at Plot No. 15, Brandix Visakhapatnam APSEZ, and the impugned assessment order is challenged on grounds set out before the Tribunal.

12. Fugro Survey India Private Limited vs The National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors.

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 10 February 2026
Sections engaged: 144C(1), 144C(2)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Writ Petition No. 3710 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court challenged an order passed by the DRP (Respondent No. 2) on two specific findings: (a) that the petitioner had failed to intimate the Assessing Officer about the filing of objections before the DRP; and (b) that the objections filed by the petitioner were taken as non-est for failing to adhere to the requirements of clause (b) of section 144C(2) of the Act. Per the source preview, the Transfer Pricing Officer had passed an order under section 92CA(3) proposing adjustments, whereupon the NFAC on 14th September 2023 passed a draft order, and the petitioner's subsequent DRP objections were treated as non-est.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Predominance of transfer-pricing contexts. Across the majority of these cases — including those involving Kennametal India, Teejay India, Tetra Pak India, Fugro Survey India, and Benteler Automotive India — section 144C(1) arises in the context of transfer-pricing references and international transactions with Associate Enterprises, confirming that the draft-order mechanism under section 144C is primarily litigated by taxpayers subject to transfer-pricing scrutiny.
DRP procedure as the focal procedural battleground. Several cases in this set (including Indus Valley Partners, Benteler Automotive, and Fugro Survey India) involve the downstream stages of the section 144C process — specifically the directions issued by the DRP under section 144C(5) or the treatment of objections under section 144C(2) — indicating that litigation risk under section 144C does not end at the draft-order stage but continues through to DRP proceedings and the final order stage.
Procedural compliance by the Assessing Officer post-DRP. The Ceragon Networks India ruling highlights a specific procedural risk: an Assessing Officer passing the final assessment order without incorporating a TPO order giving effect, raising questions about the sequencing obligations under section 144C. This suggests that timing and coordination between the Assessing Officer and the TPO in the post-DRP phase is a recurring source of grievance before the ITAT.
Section 144C(1) appearing alongside section 92C. In cases such as Kennametal India and Teejay India, section 144C(1) is cited alongside section 92C (arm's-length price determination), reflecting the structural linkage between the transfer-pricing adjustment mechanism and the mandatory draft-order requirement for eligible assessees.
Multi-year and successor-entity complexity. Marriott International's appeal covers two assessment years (2013-14 & 2014-15) in a single set of appeals, while Tanuj Properties involves a successor company to an amalgamating entity. These cases illustrate that section 144C(1) proceedings can span multiple years and become complicated by corporate restructuring events that affect the identity of the "eligible assessee."

How to use this compilation

Researchers should treat each entry in this compilation as a starting-point reference, not a complete statement of the law. The text_preview data used to construct the "Procedural / substantive ground" paragraphs above is drawn from the opening portion of each order and may not capture the full ratio decidendi, final operative direction, or any subsequent modification. Before citing any ruling in a brief, memo, or filing, readers should retrieve and read the full judgment text from the source court portal (indiankanoon.org or the official ITAT/High Court portal) and confirm that no stay, recall, or appellate reversal has been recorded since the date of the order.

When using this index for research, it is advisable to cross-reference each ruling against the relevant CBDT circulars and instructions governing the section 144C procedure, including any circulars prescribing timelines for DRP directions and Assessing Officer compliance. Several of the cases in this index turn on procedural timelines, and the applicable instructions may have been updated since the date of the order being reviewed.

Finally, this compilation is organized by date of pronouncement and does not indicate the precedential weight or binding authority of each ruling. ITAT decisions are not binding on co-ordinate benches, and Bombay High Court rulings bind only within the jurisdiction of that court. Researchers should assess jurisdictional applicability and check for any Special Leave Petitions or High Court references arising from ITAT decisions listed here before drawing any conclusion about the state of the law.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 144C(1) Draft Assessment Orders: 12 ITAT & HC Rulings (2026)