DCIT (IT) 4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. UBS AG, MUMBAI

ITA 1347/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 December 2022AY 2011-1212 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the transfer pricing adjustment. It also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the DRP's decision to treat gains from securities as capital gains, exempt under the India-Switzerland tax treaty, following previous precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee, UBS AG, a Swiss tax resident with a branch in India, received fees for marketing fixed income products. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) proposed an adjustment of Rs. 3,34,38,510, considering the entire 'market spread' as income for the assessee. The assessee argued for allocation based on its global transfer pricing policy.

What were the issues?

Whether the transfer pricing adjustment for marketing fees was justified, and whether gains from securities constituted taxable business income or exempt capital gains under the tax treaty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 92CA,Section 143(3),Section 144C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Bafna a/w, Ms. Chandni Shah and Shri Yogesh Malpani
For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present cross-appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 12/01/2016,

UBS AG ITA no.842/Mum./2016 and ITA no. 1347/Mum/.2016 passed under section 144C(13) r/w section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 92CA

All 3,978 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92CA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →