Your MAP resolution has come through while cross appeals are pending before the Tribunal. What happens to the appeals, and who has to withdraw what?
Both sides withdraw. Where the competent authorities have resolved the issues arising in the appeals and the Board has communicated the resolution, the Tribunal will permit both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds they have raised, so that the Revenue can give effect to the resolution under Rule 44G, and will dismiss the appeals. No issue is left to be decided on merits.
Decided by the ITAT (G.S. Pannu, President and Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member (Delhi Bench 'F')) on 2022-08-26, reported as ITA No. 3831/Del/2019 and ITA No. 4547/Del/2019 (assessment year 2012-13) and ITA No. 1618/Del/2020 (assessment year 2015-16). It bears on section Rule 44G, section 9(1)(vi), section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
It is the procedural template for the election between MAP and appeal where there are cross appeals. The point a practitioner takes from it is that the Revenue's own grounds go too, so the department cannot accept the resolution on the covered issues and keep its appeal alive on them.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Three appeals were heard together: the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross appeal for assessment year 2012-13, and the Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2015-16. The issues arising from the grounds concerned the taxability in India of income earned by the assessee as royalty, as fees for included services or as business profits, and whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India (para 4). At the hearing counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues arising in the appeals had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure upon consultation between the tax authorities in India and the United States (para 5), and the Departmental Representative fairly agreed with that submission (para 6). A letter dated 2 March 2021 from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, communicating to the assessee the resolution of the dispute concerning the issues arising in these appeals under MAP, was placed on record (para 7).
Having considered the submissions and the material on record, and on the footing of the Board's letter of 2 March 2021, the Bench permitted both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds raised respectively by them, so as to facilitate the Revenue in giving effect to the MAP resolution in terms of Rule 44G (para 7). All the appeals were dismissed (para 8). Nothing was left for decision on merits.
The order is short and turns on two things: that the resolution communicated by the Board covered the issues arising in the appeals, and that giving effect to it required the grounds to be off the file. The Bench did not examine the terms of the resolution or record what was agreed on the permanent establishment or the royalty and fees for included services questions; it acted on the letter and on the common position of the parties.
we permit, both, the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds raised
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppBoth sides withdraw. Where the competent authorities have resolved the issues arising in the appeals and the Board has communicated the resolution, the Tribunal will permit both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds they have raised, so that the Revenue can give effect to the resolution under Rule 44G, and will dismiss the appeals. No issue is left to be decided on merits. This was decided by the ITAT (G.S. Pannu, President and Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member (Delhi Bench 'F')) and bears on section Rule 44G, section 9(1)(vi), section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 3831/Del/2019 and ITA No. 4547/Del/2019 (assessment year 2012-13) and ITA No. 1618/Del/2020 (assessment year 2015-16). It is the procedural template for the election between MAP and appeal where there are cross appeals. The point a practitioner takes from it is that the Revenue's own grounds go too, so the department cannot accept the resolution on the covered issues and keep its appeal alive on them. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Place the Board's letter communicating the resolution on record and identify which grounds in each appeal, yours and the Revenue's, the resolution covers.
Three appeals were heard together: the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross appeal for assessment year 2012-13, and the Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2015-16. The issues arising from the grounds concerned the taxability in India of income earned by the assessee as royalty, as fees for included services or as business profits, and whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India (para 4). At the hearing counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues arising in the appeals had been resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure upon consultation between the tax authorities in India and the United States (para 5), and the Departmental Representative fairly agreed with that submission (para 6). A letter dated 2 March 2021 from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, communicating to the assessee the resolution of the dispute concerning the issues arising in these appeals under MAP, was placed on record (para 7). The matter was decided on 2022-08-26 by the ITAT (G.S. Pannu, President and Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member (Delhi Bench 'F')). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, and on the footing of the Board's letter of 2 March 2021, the Bench permitted both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds raised respectively by them, so as to facilitate the Revenue in giving effect to the MAP resolution in terms of Rule 44G (para 7). All the appeals were dismissed (para 8). Nothing was left for decision on merits.
The order is short and turns on two things: that the resolution communicated by the Board covered the issues arising in the appeals, and that giving effect to it required the grounds to be off the file. The Bench did not examine the terms of the resolution or record what was agreed on the permanent establishment or the royalty and fees for included services questions; it acted on the letter and on the common position of the parties. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "we permit, both, the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds raised"
It was decided by the ITAT on 2022-08-26 and is reported as ITA No. 3831/Del/2019 and ITA No. 4547/Del/2019 (assessment year 2012-13) and ITA No. 1618/Del/2020 (assessment year 2015-16). Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section Rule 44G, section 9(1)(vi), section 9(1)(vii), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, and on the footing of the Board's letter of 2 March 2021, the Bench permitted both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds raised respectively by them, so as to facilitate the Revenue in giving effect to the MAP resolution in terms of Rule 44G (para 7). All the appeals were dismissed (para 8). Nothing was left for decision on merits. It arises in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section Rule 44G, section 9(1)(vi), section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by G.S. Pannu, President and Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member (Delhi Bench 'F'). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Have the Departmental Representative's position taken on record; here the Representative fairly agreed with counsel's submission, which is what let the Bench dispose of all three appeals in one order. Ask the Bench to permit both sides to withdraw the grounds so the Revenue can give effect to the resolution - that is the order made here. Ask separately for liberty to revive if the resolution is not given effect to; this order records no such liberty, and the McDonald's order of February 2026 shows it will be given if sought. Keep the Rule 44G(6) acceptance and any Rule 44G(8) withdrawal obligation on file; the withdrawal before the Tribunal is the step that follows them.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, doubting or overruling this order was located and opened. It is a procedural disposal rather than a ruling on a contested question, so the absence of later treatment says little; the same course was taken by the Delhi Bench in McDonald's Corporation on 13 February 2026, which was read here, though that order does not cite this one. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order records no liberty to revive the appeals if the MAP resolution is not given effect to. A taxpayer withdrawing on the strength of a resolution should ask for that liberty expressly; it was given in McDonald's Corporation (Delhi Bench, 13 February 2026), also held in this library. The order does not set out the terms of the resolution, so it is authority on procedure only and on nothing substantive about permanent establishment, royalty or fees for included services. On one point the document could not be settled: the operative sentence cites Rule 44G, and one reading of the page has it as Rule 44G(7) read with Rule 44G(8); nothing in the order turns on the sub-rule. The sections listed above are the subject matter of the underlying dispute as the Bench described it at para 4, not provisions the Bench construed. The discovery record is accurate on the bench, the appeal numbers and the date. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Having considered the submissions and the material on record, and on the footing of the Board's letter of 2 March 2021, the Bench permitted both the assessee and the Revenue to withdraw the grounds raised respectively by them, so as to facilitate the Revenue in giving effect to the MAP resolution in terms of Rule 44G (para 7). All the appeals were dismissed (para 8). Nothing was left for decision on merits.
TaxSphere, “ACIT v Raytheon Company”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/acit-v-raytheon-company-map-withdrawal-of-grounds-under-rule-44g/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The competent authorities have settled your case under the mutual agreement procedure and the department still will not give effect to it. What order will the court make?
My transfer pricing dispute has been settled under MAP and I want to withdraw my appeal. The department has its own cross-appeal before the Tribunal. Does that survive?
Your MAP resolution settles the transactions with the treaty-country associated enterprise. Can the same treatment be claimed for your associated enterprises in other countries?
You are withdrawing your appeals because MAP has settled the issue. What do you ask the Tribunal for in case the department does not implement the resolution?
