“management fees”

3A Composites India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appealof the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

expenditure. The learned Assessing Officer may examine the same and if finds that there is no expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of management fees, the disallowance deserves to be deleted. With respect to the interest expenditure the issue needs to be verified about the liability of interest expenditure ... Composites India Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y.2011-12, 2012-13 learned Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the Arm’s Length Price of the international transaction of management fees. Accordingly, ground no.1 to 7, are allowed for statistical purposes with above direction. 018. No arguments were advanced on ground no.8 and therefore, same

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

owning and operating hotels such investments are made for various commercial reasons during the course of business and for the business. The assessee earns management fees and dividend from investments. Similar claim have been allowed in earlier years by DRP. The disallowance is hence deleted.” 38. Being aggrieved, the Revenue

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

owning and operating hotels such investments are made for various commercial reasons during the course of business and for the business. The assessee earns management fees and dividend from investments. Similar claim have been allowed in earlier years by DRP. The disallowance is hence deleted.” 38. Being aggrieved, the Revenue

Brinks India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Brinks Arya (India ) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cir 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

Officer (TPO) for the determination of Arm‟s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. 3.1. The TPO noted that the Appellant had paid Management Fee of INR.8,06,32,267/- to Brink‟s Incorporated USA. First time Management Fee was paid by the Appellant in the immediately preceding Assessment ... Year 2012-13 and this was the second year wherein expenditure by way of Management Fee was incurred by the Appellant. The TPO noticed that in the immediately preceding assessment year upward transfer pricing adjustment had been proposed by the then TPO and therefore, the Appellant was asked to show

Deputy CIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Essar Shipping Dy. Cit-Circle – 5(3)(1), Limited R. No. 568, Aayakar बिधम/ Essar House, 11, K K Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aacce3707D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Patwari/ Shri Rishav Patwari, Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2022, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

business of operation of ships and other shipping related activities. It has shown revenue from fleet operations and other operating income from supervision and management fees. In so far as shipping income is concerned, assessee has been offering its income as per ‘Tonnage Taxation Scheme’ under chapter

Spencer Stuart International B.V. Tax, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It) -4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

India without providing any documentary evidence to support the findings of the DRP/ Assessing Officer or reasons for the same. B. Taxability of management fees 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment completed vide order dated 21.01.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with ... assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. Spencer Stuart International B.V. ITA No.514/Mum./2022 12. The learned DRP/Assessing Officer erred in holding that management fees is taxable, without providing factual arguments/ reasons as well as without taking into account the Shared Service Agreement entered into by the appellant with

Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri, Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1514/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Manu Mahmud Parpia बिधम/ Ito-14(1)(2) 72, Tenerife Little Gibbs Room No. 457, Aayakar Vs. Road No.2, Malabar Hill, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacpp8377R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopal Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee (Individual) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: - 1) “The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Conforming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing Rs. 5,12,121/- Out Of Expenses U/S 14A. Your Appellant Submits That No Expenditure Has Been Incurred For The Purpose Of Earning Exempt Income & The Entire Disallowance Of Rs. 5,12,121/- Ought To Be Deleted. Without Prejudice To The Above, Your Appellant Submits That The Disallowance Is Excessive & Ought To Be Reduced Substantially.

income & expenditure account as listed in the form of chart below: - Sr. Amount(Rs.) Particulars No. 1 DEMAT charges 26,562 2 Management fees 17,31,268 3 Security Transaction Tax 2,54,528 4 PMS Charges 26,013 TOTAL 20,38,371 5. The Ld. AR also drew ... case. Perusal of the details submitted by the appellant shows that the expenses pertaining to investment activity, namely, Demat charges of Rs.11,538/- ,management fees of Rs. 14,28,295/- and PMS charges of Rs. 1,32,538/- are all debited to the appellant's capital account. These expenses have

Ingredion India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm The Income Tax Officer Ingredion India Pvt. Ltd 15(20)(1) 1605 Rupa Solitaire, Millennium Business Park, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Thane, Belapur Rd, Mahape, M.K.Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 710 Mumbai- 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecc1920C Assessee By : Shri. Ketan Ved. Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi D Hande, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement: 20.10.2022. O R D E R

this appeal is with respect to payment of regional fees of ₹ 71,60,700/- paid to National Starch Limited PTE Limited, payment of management fees of ₹18,60,449/- paid to National Starch LLC and payment of royalty for use of intangibles amounting to ₹62,41,515/- paid to Corn ... basis for allocation key is not properly justified hence, ALP of the same is determined at ₹ Nil. b. With respect to payment of management fees of ₹ 18,60,449/- the learned Transfer Pricing Officer determined ALP at ₹ Nil in absence of 2156/MUM/2017 M/s Ingredion India

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

payments for the above services, arm‟s length value of which was taken at „zero‟, aggregating to Rs 31,23,325, as against total management fees of Rs 58,20,571 paid by the assessee, assessee carried the matter before the DRP but without any success. The DRP confirmed

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

learned Assessing Officer and the Hon'ble DRP, without appreciating the evidence and submissions filed, erred in holding that the management fee received by the Appellant is taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) under Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as well as under India - Singapore Double Tax Avoidance ... failed to appreciate that as the Appellant did not make available any technical knowledge etc to Dimension Data India Private Limited ('DD India') the management fee received by the Appellant could not be taxed as FTS under Article 12 of the DTAA. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances