“management fees”

Transfer PricingSection 92BSection 92B344 judgments

The decision most relied on for management fees is J.K. (Bom.) Limited v. CBDT and Another (118 ITR 312), cited in 50 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on management fees

J.K. (Bom.) Limited v. CBDT and Another

118 ITR 312 · 1979 · High Court

citing judgments

The case elucidates the meaning of 'management services', detailing its components and considering whether such services qualify as 'technical services' for income tax purposes, particularly in relation to fees for technical services.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Merck Ltd.

389 ITR 70 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Ad-hoc transfer pricing adjustments are not justified if the Transfer Pricing Officer fails to apply one of the prescribed methods under Section 92C. The arm's length nature of international transactions, including intra-group services and management fees, should be determined through a detailed FAR analysis and benchmarking study.

DIT v. HCL Infosystems Ltd.

144 Taxmann 492 · 2005 · High Court

citing judgments

Reimbursement of salary costs of employees is not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the Act. Additionally, for a fixed place Permanent Establishment (PE) or place of management to exist, business premises must be made available or a right to use them must be established.

US Technology Resources (P) Ltd. v. CIT

97 Taxmann.com 642 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

Payments for advice on management, financial, or legal services, offered on a factual basis without transferring technical know-how, are not taxable in India as fees for technical services.

CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd.

115 ITR 149 · 1978 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

When assessing expenses under Section 40A(2), tax authorities must consider the entire position judiciously from the viewpoint of a prudent businessman, not arbitrarily or capriciously. The revenue must demonstrate tax evasion and cannot disallow expenses if the recipient is taxed at the same or higher rate.

Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT v. Sardarilal& Co.

266 CTR 181 · 2014 · Reported

citing judgments

The denial of exemption under Section 11 is justified if trustees manage the trust's finances as their personal business, collecting excess fees from students.

(v). Wockhardt Ltd. v. ACIT

10 Taxmann.com 208 · 2011 · Reported

citing judgments

Services rendered by employees of a non-resident company, which involve sharing management experiences and business strategies, are not considered technical services for the purpose of taxation as Fees for Technical Services (FTS).

Gemplus India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

3 Taxmann.com 755 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) may determine the Arm's Length Price (ALP) to be 'Nil' for intra-group services if the services were not actually rendered or if the payment is not commensurate with the benefits derived. This position aligns with the Gemplus India case where management fees were challenged.

Judgments citing management fees

De Dietrich Process Systems India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2021/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2021 & 2022/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit-19(3)(1), Mumbai De Dietrich Process Systems Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 R. No. 548/549, Road No. 16, Vs. Ttc Indl. Area, Midc Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccd8576D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 13.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 10.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-16, Mumbai In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40aSection 43B

assessment order and the same are as under:- In AY 2014-15 i) Addition on account of provision of doubtful debts. ii) Disallowance of management fees u/s 40a(ia). iii) Addition on provision for travelling expenses for commission on project under misc. expenses. iv) Disallowance u/s 43B v) Addition ... account of interest and penalty under misc. expenses. In AY 2015-16 i) Addition on account of provision of doubtful debts. ii) Disallowance of management fees u/s 40a(ia). 3 I.T.A. No. 271 & 272/Mum/2022 M/s Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd. iii) Addition towards loss of sale of fixed assets. 4. Besides

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

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. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

Puma Sports India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 306/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 306/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gopinath CHV, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

Received/Receivable Paid/Payable (Amount in INR) (Amount in INR) Cost of Samples Purchased 19927157 TNMM Finished goods purchased 2508061 1020405230 TNMM Design Charges 3594932 TNMM Management fees 90512248 TNMM Reimbursement of expenses 259976 9294728 TNMM Total 6362969 1140139363 1146502332 7. The PLI of the assessee, as per the financial statements ... Particulars Amount of International Transaction Purchases of materials and consumables 104,03,32,387 Payment of Sourcing Commission 4,61,55,846 Payment of Management Fees 4,43,56,402 Total International Transactions (A) 113,08,44,635 Ratio of (A) to Total Operating Cost 17.75% Trading Arm's Length

Trhiruvananthapuram Road Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 14 (3)91), Mumbai

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

ITA 7600/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Trhiruvananthapuram Road Dy. Cit 14(3)(1) Development Company Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, The Il & Fs Financial Centre Plot C022 G Block Bkc Bandra M.K. Road, Vs. East, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct0547J Assessee By : Shri Bhupal Rapelli, Ar Revenue By : Ms Vatsalaa Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, ARFor Respondent: Ms Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

return of income of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. The assessee has entered into a specified domestic transaction [SDT] of project management fees of Rs 14966352/- and Project supervision fees of ₹ 37,75,196/- . Therefore, the SDT Trhiruvananthapuram Road Devleopment Company Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 entered into ... profit and loss account, it is disallowable. He Trhiruvananthapuram Road Devleopment Company Ltd; A.Y. 15-16 determined ALP of Project management fees and Supervision fees at RS Nil. Accordingly adjustment to the total income was proposed at ₹ 2,811,247/–, being 15% of the total capital work in progress expenditure

Mumbai DCIT 4.2.1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Hamon Cooling Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2078/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi D Hande

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

facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is correct in holding that the adjustment on account of the Management fees and payment of R&D expenses be vacated without examining the observations made by the TPO regarding the inadequacy of the documentation submitted ... accepted the value of all the international transactions to be at arm‟s length except for the R&D Expenses and Management Fees in respect of which the TPO proposed upwards transfer pricing adjustment of INR 1,72,28,220 and INR 1,43,25,803/-, respectively. The Assessing Officer

DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Money Mart Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4256/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

business of marketing and distribution of financial products such as mutual fund units, fixed deposits, bonds, initial public offers, real estate broking and deriving management fees. The assessee also offers services such as investment, planning and research. The issue in dispute is a recurring issue coming to the assessee from

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-15 (3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd. Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(2), Plot No.9, Midc, Digha, Room No. 451, Aayakar Thane- Belapur Road, Navi Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Mumbai-400 708 Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaack2238F Assessee By : Shri V. Shridharan & Ms. Manasi C, Ar Revenue By : Shri C T Mathew, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri V. Shridharan &For Respondent: Shri C T Mathew, DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

lower authorities erred in upholding the adjustment of Rs. 6,06,85,073/- to the income of the assessee on account of ASP management fees paid by the assessee to its associated enterprise. 9.1. The lower authorities erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation and the economic analysis undertaken ... that arm’s- length price of those transactions Rs. Nil. 06. He found that such transactions are with respect to [1] Payment of ASP management fees of ₹ 60,685,073/- which was in relation to administrative/management services provided by a Chinese entity affiliated entities operating in Asia-Pacific region

M/S. Waterline Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 10Th Floor, Gamma Block, Of Income Tax, Sigma Soft Tech Park No.07, Circle 7(1)(2), Airport Varthur Road, Bangalore. Whitefield, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan: Aaacw 8059N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-7, Bengaluru Dated 27.3.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 18 Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Page 2 Of 20

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

also made a disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards the payments made by the assessee for management fees, outsourcing expenses and license fees. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who upheld the addition/disallowance made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before ... course of hearing, the AO noticed that the assessee has made certain payments without deducting tax at source as listed below:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Management Fees 48,45,276 Outsourcing Expenses 5,68,544 License Fees 4,51,424 Total 58,65,244 21. The AO made a disallowance

DCIT-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karvat Cover More Assist Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 250Section 40

26/11/2015, declaring total income at Rs. 18,81,56,000. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has paid management fees amounting to Rs. 5,40,49,783, to one of the Cover-More Group Companies, i.e., Cover- More Insurance Services Pty Limited, Australia. Accordingly ... assessee KARVAT COVER MORE ASSIST PVT. LTD. ITA no.4288/Mum./2019 was asked to explain regarding the nature of management fees paid to the aforesaid company and as to why TDS has not be deducted in regard to the said payment. In reply, assessee submitted that the services were merely support

Eaton Power Quality Private Limited, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.567/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Tax, Puducherry-605 111. Circle-1, Puducherry. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1689/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Eaton Power Quality Pvt Circle-1, Ltd. Puducherry-605 003. 2, E.V.R Street, Sedarapet, Puducherry-605 111. Pan: Aaacc 6943R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

issue in accordance with law. 9. The next issue that came up for our consideration from appeal of the assessee is disallowance of management fees paid to AE, namely Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. u/s.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has debited an amount of Rs.1 ... under the head ‘management fee’ for corporate cost allocation. The Assessing Officer has e-mail correspondence, the assessee could not file any evidences for rendering services by the AE. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that an identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal for earlier assessment year

DCIT, Pondicherry vs. Eaton Power Quality P. Ltd., Pondicherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1689/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 27.07.2022

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.989/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Infosys Bpo Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Electronic City, Hosur Road, Tax, Bengaluru – 560 100. International Taxation, Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Of Cit(A) - 12, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Bpo Services. The Assessee Made Payment Of 2100 Us$ To A Non- Resident Viz., Stakeholder Centered Coaching (International Ltd.,)

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 248Section 5Section 9(1)(vii)

Pune)(Trib.) S. 9(1)(vii):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Fees for technical services — Management fees -Indian subsidiaries — Most favoured Nation (MFN) clause —Not taxable as fees for technical services — Training services -Matter remanded - DTAA- India- Sweden I Art. 10, 12(4)(b) I Tribunal following

Asstt CIT - 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. General Atlantic P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1270/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalacit-5(1)(1), Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd., Level 19, Birla Auror, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400030. Pan: Aabcg7917Q ..... Respondent Appellant By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Sh. Porus Kaka/Divesh Chawla Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. Porus Kaka/Divesh Chawla

Section 133(6)

advisory fees received where it was seen that the most of the revenue of Rs 17.23 Cr was from advisory fees and the "Mall management fees" of Rs 6.65 lakhs amounts to only 0.3% of the total income for the impugned FY 2009-10 and so, KIACL qualifies

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

international transaction. Use of method for benchmarking the international transaction 11. erred in holding the arm's length price of the international transaction of management fees at Rs Nil without using any of the five methods prescribed under the Act for benchmarking the international transaction. Corporate tax grounds 12. erred ... transactions with its associated enterprise: Nature of international Amount (INR) transactions 13,90,61,888 Purchase of software products 57,97,930 Payment of management fees 6. As both the transactions were inextricably linked, assessee adopted combined transaction approach to benchmark the aforesaid international transactions with its associated enterprises using

Mersen India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 381/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Mersen India Pvt. The Joint Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 5, Bommasandra Income Tax (Osd), Industrial Area, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 099. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaace3191K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Ramya Nayak, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 22/03/2022 By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. Transfer Pricing 1. The Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo"), The Assessing Officer ("Ao") & The Dispute Resolution Panel, Bangalore ("Drp") Have Grossly Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Determining The Arm'S Length Price ("Alp") Of The Human Resource Services As Nil. 2. The Learned Tpo/ Ao/Drp Has Erred In Not Considered The Fact That The Human Resource Services Is As Per The Arm'S Length Price Adopting The Transaction Net Margin Method (" Tnmm")

For Appellant: Smt. Ramya Nayak, CA

Carbone Lorraine S.A, France. The assessee has entered into several international transactions with its AE in all these years. We are concerned with the Management fee paid by the assessee to its AE. The assessee had paid to its AE for eight different types of services. The TPO, applying benefit ... extracted below:- “8.1 The taxpayer has not shown that the alleged services received from its AE for which payment of management fee amounting to Rs.91,51,375/- has been made, are required for the taxpayer’s business and also that the taxpayer is not capable of getting these services locally

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 588/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 234BSection 40A(2)

provisions of 40A(2) override (iv) the provisions of Chapter X and there being no action under section 40A(2) for payment towards management fee, GSMF and after sales service, no adjustment under Chapter X can be made. GROUNDS RELATING TO MANAGEMENT FEES, GLOBAL SALES AND MARKETING ACTIVITIES FEES ( `GSMF ... appreciating that the Appellant had adopted the (i) TNMM at the segment level, in which process, the management fees, GSMF and after sales service fees were considered as closely linked transaction and IT(TP)A No.588/Bang/2020 Page 3 of 12 hence were subsumed into the expenditure and accordingly already considered

M/S Ingersoll-Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 729/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

order dated 25.1.2016 made the following adjustments :- S No Nature of international transaction Amount (Rs.) 1 Cost contribution on account of 45,11,845 management fees 2 Purchase of traded goods 1,76,55,963 3 Installation and commissioning segment ... Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. The DRP upheld the order of the TPO towards cost contribution on account of management fees. In relation to the contention of the assessee that the goodwill was pertaining to the Distribution segment and not Installation and commissioning segment

Cowtown Software Design Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Nabhiraj Software Design Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.(TDS) 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 294/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201

said agreement envisaged provision of various services by Social Kinnect to the assessee such as e-mail services, web management, online media buying and management fees. During the year under consideration, the assessee had received single invoice specifying respective services provided by Social Kinnect. The sample invoices copies were duly ... vendor in buying the online space for advertisement. This is in relation to advertisement attracting TDS @2% u/s 194C of the Act.  Management fees This is the component of the invoice in which social kinnect charges its fees at a specified percentages over the online media buying / influencer charges. This

Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Private Limited, Ramanagaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 92D

using TNNM as the most appropriate method to benchmark IT(TP)A No.362/Bang/2021 Page 18 of 40 the international transactions. The Ld.TPO segregated management fees and royalty payment, which constituted major part of the transaction. The entire dispute before us, is in respect of the method used for benchmarking