UBS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
What were the facts?
The assessee sought to withdraw their appeal due to the small quantum of additions and the high cost of litigation. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to the small tax effect and high litigation costs, despite believing they had a strong case on merits regarding the re-computation of Arm's Length Price for support services.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 contest the final assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for Assessee [AR], at the outset sought permission of the bench to withdraw the appeal due to smallness of the quantum additions as agitated by the assessee under the appeal.
IT [TP] A.No.1522/Mum/2016 UBS (India) Private Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 The written request dated 24/08/2018, in this regard, has been placed before us, the contents of which are extracted below:-
Re : UBS (India) Private Limited (“the Company” or “we” “us”) Arising out of ITA No.: 1522/Mum-2016 Assessment Year (‘AY’): 2011-12 The captioned appeal filed by us against the order the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(3)(1), Mumbai is fixed for hearing before the Hon’ble ‘K’ Bench on 28 August 2018. In this connection, we wish to submit that as the tax effect on the quantum involved in the appeal is small and the likely efforts / costs involved in litigating the same are high, the management is desirous of withdrawing the appeal. However, we reserve the right to contest the issue in subsequent years (if any) and the withdrawing of appeal should not be construed as acceptance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 14(3)(1) on the issues involved. Further, the Appellant strongly believes that the DRP/ AO/TPO erred in re- computing the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction of support services (paid) amounting to Rs.9,54,514/- as ‘NIL’ even though a detailed documentation and evidences was submitted in support of the services received. More so the adjustment was not warranted, since there was no tax base erosion and no loss to the revenue, considering the fact that such charges are taxable in India in the hands of the recipient entity. Accordingly, in spite of a strong case to argue on merits, in the interest of small tax effect involved and high cost of litigation, the management request Your Honours to kindly permit us to withdraw the appeal filed by us. The inconvenience caused to Your Honours is regretted.
No objection against the withdrawal has been raised by the revenue.
IT [TP] A.No.1522/Mum/2016 UBS (India) Private Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 3. Considering the same, the appeal stand dismissed in limine as being not pressed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th August, 2018.
More judgments on Section 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026