17th November 2016 and CIT v. Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd.

357 ITR 584High Court2013#11561 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10B(2)Section 10TA Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 144C(13)Section 234B Section 270A Section 92B

Judgments citing 17th November 2016 and CIT v. Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd.

Future First Info Services Private Ltd., Delhi vs. AO Circle-7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92D

…er engaged in investment advisory services since providing investment advisory services required high level of knowledge. Similar view held in Caryle India Advisors (P) Ltd, vs. ACIT [(2012) 146 TTJ 521] was upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 357 ITR 584. 4.4 The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. TPO had erred in considering total cost/income instead of only ‘operating items’ while computing the adjustment. Alternatively, he prayed to consider only ‘operating items’ while calculating the transfer pricing adjustment in case the assessee was not held engaged in providing ITeS. The Ld. AR further pleaded t…

Carlyle India Advisors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7515/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…ail analysis of service agreement held that the assessee is providing non-binding investment advisory and related support services. The order of the Tribunal was upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1286 of 2012 dated 22.02.2013 reported vide (2013) 357 ITR 584(Bom). 9. No change in the facts or the functions undertaken by the assessee is brought to our notice. The subsistence of “service agreement” which is in existence since 01.04.2006, till the period under consideration, is not disputed by the lower authorities. No contrary law is also brought to our notice. More over the international transaction r…

Carlyle India Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7277/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh(Virtual Hearing In Vc No.Ii) M/S. Carlyle India Advisors P. Ltd. D C I T - 14(1)(2) 1St Floor, Quadrant-A, The Il&Fs Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Financial Centre Plot-C Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 22, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra Mumbai 400020 (E)Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aabcc4522F Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mukesh Butani-Ar Respondent By: Shri Anand Mohan-Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.10.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Passed In Pursuance Of The Direction Of Drp Dated 10.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani-ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ail analysis of service agreement held that the assessee is providing non-binding investment advisory and related support services. The order of the Tribunal was upheld by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1286 of 2012 dated 22.02.2013 reported vide (2013) 357 ITR 584(Bom). 9. No change in the facts or the functions undertaken by the assessee is brought to our notice. The subsistence of „service agreement‟ which is in existence since 01.04.2006, till the period under consideration, is not disputed by the lower authorities. No contrary law is also brought to our notice. More over the international transaction…

Kotak Mhindra Asset Management Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Kotak Mahindra Asset V. Asst. Cit Management Company. Ltd., Range – 14(2)(1) 27 Bkc, G. Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai -400 020 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 51 Pan: Aaack5576C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vispi T. Patel Department By : Shri D.G. Pansari

For Appellant: Shri Vispi T. PatelFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 14A(2)Section 4Section 8D

…4. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly states that the issue arising herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decisions of this Court in CIT Vs. Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd. 357 ITR 584 and CIT Vs. General Atlantic (P) Ltd. 384 ITR 271 and the order dated 17th November, 2016 passed in the case of CIT Vs. Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 1051 of 2014). 5. In view of the above, as the issue is concluded by orders of this Court, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question…

Tata Asset Management Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Faroq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)

…cluding Mumbai Benches. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Temasek Holding Advisors India Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.1051/2014, dated 17th November 2016 and CIT v/s Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd., [2013] 357 ITR 584 (Bom.). Besides the above decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in a number of decisions pertaining to the very same assessment year has held that this company is a good comparable to an investment advisory service provider. In case of DCIT v/s General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.1717/Mum./2016 & Anr., dat…

Mount Kellett Capital Management India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1552/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainit(Tp)A No.1552/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mount Kellett Capital Management Dy. Cit 14(2)(2), India Private Limited., Mumbai Vs. 1302 Tower-3, Indiabulls Finance Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013. Pan Aafcm6895B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms. Aayushi ModaniFor Respondent: Ms Amrita Ranjan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…g 6 IT(TP)A No.1552/Mum/2016 Mount Kellett Capital Management India Private Limited similar activities as are being tested in the instant case and for said proposition, he has relied upon the following decisions: • CIT vs. Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. (357 ITR 584) (Bom) • CIT v. General Atlantic (P.) Ltd. (384 ITR 271) (Bom) • AGM India Advisors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (79 taxmann.com 86) • TPG Capital India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (79 taxmann.com 101) • DCIT v. General Atlantic (P.) Ltd. (91 taxmann.com 406) • Goldman Sachs (India) Securities (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (78 taxmann.com 142) • Temasek Holdings Advisors (I)(P)…

Warburg Pincus India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6981/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 6981/Mum./2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008–09) Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. 7Th Floor, Express Towers ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan – Aaacw5205E V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–3(3), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…5–06, etc., order dated 29.7.2016; ii) Sandstone Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2013] 32 taxmann.com 216 (Mum.); iii) Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2013] 27 ITR (Trib.) 125 (Mum.); and iv) Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 584 (Bom.). 18. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP. 19. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. From the annual report of the company, it is noticed that the company has reported…

Sandstone Capital Advisors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1000/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…I.T.A. No.1000/Mum/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘K’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.1000/Mum/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Sandstone Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. .....……….………………….Appellant Regus, 6th Floor, Mafatlal House, H.T. Parekh Marg, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai. [PAN: AAICS 8031 L] Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ….......…..…………….…Respondent Circle 3(3), Mumbai. Appearances by: Porus Kaka, for the appellant N.K. Chand, for respondent Date of concluding the hearing : January 12th, 2016 Date of pronouncing the orde…

M/S. Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6638/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (Pan: Aadcp7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Ms. Shweta Kashyap, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.10.2013 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao") Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Making An Addition To The Total Income Of The Appellant Amounting To Rs. 95,945,630/- In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Drp") Upholding The Adjustment To The Transfer Price Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo").

For Appellant: S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…(d) that the comparable company was excluded by the Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2012) 17 ITR (Trib.) 24 (Mum.) which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 584 (Bom.). (e) that the comparable company was excluded by the Tribunal in the case of Xander Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT , 2014 (36) ITR 499 (Del.). 6.1 Ld. CIT (DR), on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has chosen TNMM as the most appropriate method for benchmarking of international transactions and under this method broad similari…