← All Phrases

“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
50
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
48
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
45
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
34
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
28
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
22
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
20
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
20
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

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar S.R., CIT(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

assessee on the ground that the expenses are incurred by the assessee in obtaining support mostly by way of payment towards legal, technical and management fees for availing services, which cannot be termed as incurred for acquiring business or commercial rights falling under the definition of intangible assets. According

M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 181/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

3CEB Report Sl. Transaction Amount in Rs. No. 1. Receipt from contract software 45,64,93,898 development service 2. Payment of management fees 1,52,16,934 4. Reimbursement received 1,06,13,764 5. Recharge of expenses 2,28,745 3. As per the TP documentation ... referred the case to Transfer Pricing Office (TPO) u/s.92CA as the assessee had international transactions. The TPO made an adjustment towards ALP of management fees for an amount of Rs.1,52,16,934. The AO passed an assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made other additions / disallowances towards

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3279/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

development service 2. Payment for administrative 1,41,08,690 48,71,308 support services 3. Management fees paid 2,17,38,508 1,77,93,277 4. Reimbursement of FBT 2,58,120 - 5. Reimbursement of expenses 1,83,28,390 56,86,792 received 6. Training expenses paid ... Office (TPO) u/s.92CA as the assessing had international transactions. The TPO accepted the ALP towards all transactions but made an adjustment towards ALP of management fees for an amount of Rs.2,17,38,508. The AO passed an assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made other additions / disallowances

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Axa Group Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 555/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 14ASection 92C

development service 2. Payment for administrative 1,41,08,690 48,71,308 support services 3. Management fees paid 2,17,38,508 1,77,93,277 4. Reimbursement of FBT 2,58,120 - 5. Reimbursement of expenses 1,83,28,390 56,86,792 received 6. Training expenses paid ... Office (TPO) u/s.92CA as the assessing had international transactions. The TPO accepted the ALP towards all transactions but made an adjustment towards ALP of management fees for an amount of Rs.2,17,38,508. The AO passed an assessment order incorporating the TP adjustment and also made other additions / disallowances

M/S. Star Chemical (Bombay) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 5987/MUM/2006[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

ought not to be included in the total income. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of management fees of Rs. 35,40,000/- paid to ITC Classic finance Limited on the ground that it is capital expenditure. The aforesaid amount ought ... Assessment Orders passed u/s 143(3) in subsequent years by A.O taxing the lease rental as income of the Appellant. 2. That the management fees paid of Rs. 35.40 Lacs to ITCC be allowed. 3. That the hire charges of Rs. 358366/- & Rs.4371760/- Lacs paid to ITCC Finance under

M/S. Star Chemical (Bombay) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CIT - 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 5986/MUM/2006[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 1995-1996

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, Sr. A.R

ought not to be included in the total income. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of management fees of Rs. 35,40,000/- paid to ITC Classic finance Limited on the ground that it is capital expenditure. The aforesaid amount ought ... Assessment Orders passed u/s 143(3) in subsequent years by A.O taxing the lease rental as income of the Appellant. 2. That the management fees paid of Rs. 35.40 Lacs to ITCC be allowed. 3. That the hire charges of Rs. 358366/- & Rs.4371760/- Lacs paid to ITCC Finance under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hitech Plast Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7342/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Hitech Corporation Ltd., 3. The ground No.2 raised by the assessee is challenging the disallowance of management fees of Rs.63,00,000/- u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act. 3.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record ... assessee paid Rs.93,00,000/- towards management fees to Coating Specialities (India) Ltd., The assessee placed on record the agreement entered for marketing consultancy with Coating Specialities (India) Ltd., wherein consideration was fixed to be payable by the assessee as management fees. The assessee also submitted that Coating Specialities (India

Hitech Corportion Limited (Formerly Known As Hitech Plast Ltd), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6770/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)

No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. M/s. Hitech Corporation Ltd., 3. The ground No.2 raised by the assessee is challenging the disallowance of management fees of Rs.63,00,000/- u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act. 3.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record ... assessee paid Rs.93,00,000/- towards management fees to Coating Specialities (India) Ltd., The assessee placed on record the agreement entered for marketing consultancy with Coating Specialities (India) Ltd., wherein consideration was fixed to be payable by the assessee as management fees. The assessee also submitted that Coating Specialities (India

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

support services) 9. Technology License 52,58,825 54,21,169 56,40,000 renewal fee 10 Management fees 4,22,69,056 3,01,67,905 2,67,01,782 Total 29,33,58,877 18,02,74,667 21,25,10,652 5. The TPO accepted the TNMM ... TNMM to determine the ALP in respect of payments for intra group services, namely, Technology License renewal fees, commercial services (IT support services) and management fee. The TPO instead proposed to adopt CUP for these transactions as the most appropriate methods. In the opinion of the TPO, these transactions were

Bostik India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2031/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

support services) 9. Technology License 52,58,825 54,21,169 56,40,000 renewal fee 10 Management fees 4,22,69,056 3,01,67,905 2,67,01,782 Total 29,33,58,877 18,02,74,667 21,25,10,652 5. The TPO accepted the TNMM ... TNMM to determine the ALP in respect of payments for intra group services, namely, Technology License renewal fees, commercial services (IT support services) and management fee. The TPO instead proposed to adopt CUP for these transactions as the most appropriate methods. In the opinion of the TPO, these transactions were

Bostik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.837/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 It(Tp)A No.626/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 It(Tp)A No.2031/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Bostik India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.124/4 & 124/4A, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(2) V. Bangalore. Kachanayakanahalli, Off: Hosur Road, Bommasandra Post, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 099. Pan : Aabcb4627N. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.C.J.Brito, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Three Final Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2011-2012, 2012-2013 & 2013-2014. Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Sri.C.J.Brito, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

support services) 9. Technology License 52,58,825 54,21,169 56,40,000 renewal fee 10 Management fees 4,22,69,056 3,01,67,905 2,67,01,782 Total 29,33,58,877 18,02,74,667 21,25,10,652 5. The TPO accepted the TNMM ... TNMM to determine the ALP in respect of payments for intra group services, namely, Technology License renewal fees, commercial services (IT support services) and management fee. The TPO instead proposed to adopt CUP for these transactions as the most appropriate methods. In the opinion of the TPO, these transactions were

M/S Mersen India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 122/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.118 To 122/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

M/S Mersen India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.118 To 122/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

M/S Mersen India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 120/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.118 To 122/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

M/S Mersen India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 119/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.118 To 122/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

M/S Mersen India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 118/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A Nos.118 To 122/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

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

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

transaction under the head marketing support service segment, manpower support service segment and payment of Page 5 of 13 IT(TP)A No. 165/Bang/2020 management fee separately. The Ld.TPO also noted that assessee had computed its margin as under: 2.5 The Ld.TPO re-casted the financials of assessee for marketing ... OP/total cost as PLI. As the margin computed by the Ld.TPO under the segment was 2.31% necessary adjustments were proposed. 2.7 In respect of management fees segment, the Ld.TPO was of the opinion that, the assessee has not proved with sufficient evidence and services have been actually rendered

M/S Adc India Communications Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 79/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

Revenue. Grounds 5 and 6 (Corporate Tax issues – Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act.) 6. The learned DR submitted that management fees amounting to Rs.1,36,42,976 paid by the assessee to foreign entity is liable for tax as “fees for technical services

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Adc India Communications Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.41/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Adc India Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) Communications Limited, V. Bangalore. 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. Pan : Aaack6553H. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.79/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Adc India Communications The Assistant Commissioner Limited, 485/8A & 8B, 14Th Cross, Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. 4Th Phase, P.B.No.8512, Peenya Bangalore. Industrial Area Bangalore – 560 058. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, Ca Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022

For Appellant: Sri.Aliasagar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9

Revenue. Grounds 5 and 6 (Corporate Tax issues – Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I.T.Act.) 6. The learned DR submitted that management fees amounting to Rs.1,36,42,976 paid by the assessee to foreign entity is liable for tax as “fees for technical services

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

market which acts as a key feeder to Taj group's Indian operations - To obtain new management contracts in the international markets (details of „management fees received during AY 2013-14 including from domestic companies and foreign JVs is enclosed. The assessee would like to bring to your notice that ... deduction of interest u/s 36(1) (iii) cannot be allowed. 4.5 With regard to the claim of the assessee that the assessee will receive management fees from the above JV‟s and foreign subsidiaries which is taxable the same fs also found without any merit. The management fee