The ITAT held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) lacks...

The ITAT held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) lacks jurisdiction to direct the Transfer Pricing Officer or Assessing Officer in second-round proceedings after the case was set aside by the Tribunal, particularly when a final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(3) had already been passed. The tribunal determined that section 144C and the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009 do not confer such powers on the DRP. Relying on Undercarriage and Tractor Parts (P.) Ltd., which established that DRP can only give directions in pending assessment proceedings, the ITAT ruled that both the transfer pricing order under section 92CA(3) and the final assessment order were void ab-initio and accordingly quashed them.

---