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?
Ask for liberty to revive, and it will be given. The Delhi Bench permitted withdrawal of three appeals following a competent authority agreement under Article 27 of the India-United States treaty and dismissed them as withdrawn, but expressly with liberty to revive them again in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to, or if the dispute remains unresolved for any reason.
Decided by the ITAT (Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (Delhi Bench 'D')) on 2026-02-13, reported as ITA No. 211/Del/2017 (assessment year 2012-13), ITA No. 5609/Del/2017 (assessment year 2013-14) and ITA No. 3847/Del/2018 (assessment year 2014-15). It bears on section Rule 44G, section Rule 44G(8), section 295(2)(h), section 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
Withdrawal is the step Rule 44G requires and it is irreversible unless the order says otherwise. This is the order to put before a Bench when asking that the withdrawal be recorded with a safety net, and it shows the form of words that was accepted.
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 by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were directed against assessment orders dated 7 November 2016, 13 July 2017 and 27 March 2018 passed pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 26 October 2016, 31 May 2017 and 1 February 2018, and were disposed of by a consolidated order as common issues were involved (para 1). The assessee filed a letter dated 5 February 2026 seeking withdrawal of the appeals, whose relevant extracts the Bench reproduced; the letter was headed as a request for withdrawal of appeals on account of an application under Rule 44G of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and referred to s.295(2)(h) of the Act read with Rule 44G(8) (para 2). As set out in that letter, the competent authorities of India and the United States, acting under Article 27 of the India-United States tax treaty, had by agreement dated 2 February 2026 resolved the permanent establishment question on the footing of the 15 per cent withholding tax paid in India as per the return, and for assessment year 2012-13 had agreed a royalty rate of 2 per cent as earned and offered to tax, with the treaty withholding rate of 15 per cent. The Senior Departmental Representative raised no serious objection to the request (para 3).
The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeals, which were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them again in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to, or if the dispute remains unresolved for any reason, as prayed (para 4). In the result all three appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty (para 5). The order was pronounced in open court on 13 February 2026, the same day it was heard.
The Bench acted on the assessee's written request, the competent authority agreement it described and the absence of any serious objection from the Revenue. It did not itself examine or rule on the terms of the resolution, on the permanent establishment question or on the royalty rate; the liberty to revive is what it added to the withdrawal, and it added it because it was prayed for.
with the liberty to revive them again, in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to
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 WhatsAppAsk for liberty to revive, and it will be given. The Delhi Bench permitted withdrawal of three appeals following a competent authority agreement under Article 27 of the India-United States treaty and dismissed them as withdrawn, but expressly with liberty to revive them again in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to, or if the dispute remains unresolved for any reason. This was decided by the ITAT (Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (Delhi Bench 'D')) and bears on section Rule 44G, section Rule 44G(8), section 295(2)(h), section 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 211/Del/2017 (assessment year 2012-13), ITA No. 5609/Del/2017 (assessment year 2013-14) and ITA No. 3847/Del/2018 (assessment year 2014-15). Withdrawal is the step Rule 44G requires and it is irreversible unless the order says otherwise. This is the order to put before a Bench when asking that the withdrawal be recorded with a safety net, and it shows the form of words that was accepted. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File a written withdrawal application referring to the Rule 44G application and the competent authority agreement, and ask that its relevant extracts be taken on record - that is how the request came before the Bench here.
Three appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were directed against assessment orders dated 7 November 2016, 13 July 2017 and 27 March 2018 passed pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 26 October 2016, 31 May 2017 and 1 February 2018, and were disposed of by a consolidated order as common issues were involved (para 1). The assessee filed a letter dated 5 February 2026 seeking withdrawal of the appeals, whose relevant extracts the Bench reproduced; the letter was headed as a request for withdrawal of appeals on account of an application under Rule 44G of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and referred to s.295(2)(h) of the Act read with Rule 44G(8) (para 2). As set out in that letter, the competent authorities of India and the United States, acting under Article 27 of the India-United States tax treaty, had by agreement dated 2 February 2026 resolved the permanent establishment question on the footing of the 15 per cent withholding tax paid in India as per the return, and for assessment year 2012-13 had agreed a royalty rate of 2 per cent as earned and offered to tax, with the treaty withholding rate of 15 per cent. The Senior Departmental Representative raised no serious objection to the request (para 3). The matter was decided on 2026-02-13 by the ITAT (Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (Delhi Bench 'D')). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeals, which were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them again in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to, or if the dispute remains unresolved for any reason, as prayed (para 4). In the result all three appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty (para 5). The order was pronounced in open court on 13 February 2026, the same day it was heard.
The Bench acted on the assessee's written request, the competent authority agreement it described and the absence of any serious objection from the Revenue. It did not itself examine or rule on the terms of the resolution, on the permanent establishment question or on the royalty rate; the liberty to revive is what it added to the withdrawal, and it added it because it was prayed for. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "with the liberty to revive them again, in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to"
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-02-13 and is reported as ITA No. 211/Del/2017 (assessment year 2012-13), ITA No. 5609/Del/2017 (assessment year 2013-14) and ITA No. 3847/Del/2018 (assessment year 2014-15). 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 Rule 44G(8), section 295(2)(h), section 144C, 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 helps the taxpayer. The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeals, which were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them again in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to, or if the dispute remains unresolved for any reason, as prayed (para 4). In the result all three appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty (para 5). The order was pronounced in open court on 13 February 2026, the same day it was heard. It arises in Appeals and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section Rule 44G, section Rule 44G(8), section 295(2)(h), section 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Brajesh Kumar Singh, Accountant Member (Delhi Bench 'D'). 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. Ask in terms for liberty to revive if the resolution is not given effect to or if the dispute remains unresolved for any reason, and check that the order records it. Do not withdraw before the competent authority agreement is in hand and its terms for each year are clear; the agreement here settled the permanent establishment year by year and the royalty rate for one year. Diarise the order giving effect and revive promptly if the department does not implement; the liberty is expressed as a liberty, not as a fresh limitation.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The order was pronounced on 13 February 2026 and nothing applying, doubting or overruling it has been located. That is the expected position for an order of this age and it will stay this way until a later Bench picks it up. 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.
Everything recorded about the competent authority agreement - its date of 2 February 2026, the acceptance of the 15 per cent withholding position on the permanent establishment question and the 2 per cent royalty rate for assessment year 2012-13 - comes from the assessee's withdrawal letter reproduced at para 2, not from an independent recital by the Bench. The Bench did not see or construe the agreement itself, and the entry is authority on the form of the withdrawal order alone. The order does not record the filing of Form No. 34F or an acceptance under Rule 44G(6); it records only the withdrawal application made on account of the Rule 44G application. Date of hearing and date of pronouncement are both 13 February 2026. The discovery record is accurate on the bench, the appeal numbers, the date and the quoted liberty to revive. 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.
The assessee was permitted to withdraw the appeals, which were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive them again in the unlikely event that the MAP resolution is not given effect to, or if the dispute remains unresolved for any reason, as prayed (para 4). In the result all three appeals for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were dismissed as withdrawn with that liberty (para 5). The order was pronounced in open court on 13 February 2026, the same day it was heard.
TaxSphere, “McDonald's Corporation v ACIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/mcdonalds-corporation-v-acit-map-withdrawal-with-liberty-to-revive/ (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 has come through while cross appeals are pending before the Tribunal. What happens to the appeals, and who has to withdraw what?
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?
