https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210159 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 144C of the Income-tax Act and Rule 3(2) of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009. However, to maintain impartiality, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) was directed to ensure jurisdictional Commissioners are not appointed to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of avoiding any perception of bias in the adjudicatory process. Additionally, respondents were ordered to deposit the previously directed cost of Rs. 50,000. en-us Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210159 The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 144C of the Income-tax Act and Rule 3(2) of the Income-tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009. However, to maintain impartiality, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) was directed to ensure jurisdictional Commissioners are not appointed to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of avoiding any perception of bias in the adjudicatory process. Additionally, respondents were ordered to deposit the previously directed cost of Rs. 50,000. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210159