← 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. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

Mumbai bench of Tribunal on an identical issue:- “3. Second ground of appeal pertains to deleting the disallowance on account of sponsorship fees and management fees. In the earlier part of our order, we have mentioned the facts about the various disallowances made by the AO including the capitalisation ... Co.Ltd.(115 ITR 659) of the honorable Delhi High Court, the FAA allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 3.1.a. With regard to management fee, the FAA observed that there was no doubt about the genuineness of expenditure, that the expenditure was incurred for availing infrastructure facilities administrative support

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd. Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 606/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

regard and hence rejected. M/s. Newedge Broker India Pvt. Ltd., 3.8. The ld. TPO in para 6.5.2 concluded that payment for intragroup services including management fees will be treated at arm’s length only when it is proved substantially by the tax payer that such services were actually received

Newedge Broker India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 605/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

regard and hence rejected. M/s. Newedge Broker India Pvt. Ltd., 3.8. The ld. TPO in para 6.5.2 concluded that payment for intragroup services including management fees will be treated at arm’s length only when it is proved substantially by the tax payer that such services were actually received

Newedge Broker India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1254/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

regard and hence rejected. M/s. Newedge Broker India Pvt. Ltd., 3.8. The ld. TPO in para 6.5.2 concluded that payment for intragroup services including management fees will be treated at arm’s length only when it is proved substantially by the tax payer that such services were actually received

M/S Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 3363/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 3363/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Tyco Fire & The Assistant Security India Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of D-601, Rmz Contennial, Income Tax, Kundalahalli Main Road, Circle – 7 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabct0087C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 05-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.10.2018 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Dated October 26, 2018 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 20, 2018 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Drp") U/S 144C (5) Of The Act (`The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

making suitable adjustments to account for differences in the risk profile of the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparables. Grounds relating to payment of management fees: 22. The learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in surpassing his jurisdiction which is limited to determination of ALP, by delving into whether the Appellant ... actually received the services in connection with the amounts paid towards management fees. 23. Without prejudice to the above Ground, the learned AO / TPO / DRP erred in stating that the Appellant was not able to justify the actual receipt of management services. 24. The learned AO / TPO / DRP erred

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 790/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

appeal in IT(TP)A No.103/Bang/2019, the learned AR confined his submissions to the following issues:- (i) Manufacturing segment (Grounds 4 to 13) (ii) Management fees (Ground 14 to 22) [This adjustment was not proposed by the TPO but was unilaterally added by the DRP) (iii) ITES segment (Grounds ... Management fee (Grounds 35 to 37) [This addition was unilaterally added by the DRP as a protective addition] We shall adjudicate the above issues as under:- (i) Manufacturing segment (Grounds 4 to 13) (Transfer Pricing Adjustment) 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3 IT(TP)A No.103

M/S Brady Company India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, ground 26 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 It(Tp)A No.790/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.Brady Company India Private The Income Tax Officer Limited, No.26, Survey No.41 Ward 1(1)(4) V. Bengaluru. Konappana Agrahara Village Begur, Hobli, Electronci City, Phase-Ii, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccb8163A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2022 Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Appeals Are At The Instance Of The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-2015. 2. The Reason For Filing Two Appeals For Assessment Year 2014-2015 Is That Pursuant To The Dispute Resolution Panel’S (Drp) Directions (Directions Dated 28.09.2008), The A.O. Passed Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act Dated 15.11.2018. In The Said Assessment Order, The Aggregate Transfer Pricing Adjustment Was Determined At Rs.14,43,51,081. An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Against The Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act (Appeal No.It(Tp)A No.103/Bang/2019). Subsequently, On Application By The Assessee, The Drp Passed Rectification Order Dated

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

appeal in IT(TP)A No.103/Bang/2019, the learned AR confined his submissions to the following issues:- (i) Manufacturing segment (Grounds 4 to 13) (ii) Management fees (Ground 14 to 22) [This adjustment was not proposed by the TPO but was unilaterally added by the DRP) (iii) ITES segment (Grounds ... Management fee (Grounds 35 to 37) [This addition was unilaterally added by the DRP as a protective addition] We shall adjudicate the above issues as under:- (i) Manufacturing segment (Grounds 4 to 13) (Transfer Pricing Adjustment) 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3 IT(TP)A No.103

Altran Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2904/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2904/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Altran Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., C/O Ernst & Young Llp, The Deputy Ground & 1St Floor, Commissioner Of Income ‘A’ Wing, Divyasree Chambers, Tax, Vs. #11, O’ Shaughnessy Road, Circle – 1 (1)(1), Langford Gardens, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaaca7125R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 31/10/2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 1(1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Altran Technologies India Private Limited (The 'Appellant') Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Id. Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The 'Act') Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel (`Drp') On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C

enterprise: Amount Particulars (Rs.) Payment of royalty 59,532 Revenue from services 336,827,840 Project expenses 859,759 Consultation Services 45,89,891 Management Fees 329,513 Accounts Receivable 85,890,729 Accounts Payable 51,691,129 3. The Ld.TPO observed that assessee had AE as well

Tyrolit (I) Superabrasive Tools Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 539/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)Section 43A

currency outstanding as on 31/03/2012. The Ld.AO called upon assessee to show cause as to why the foreign exchange loss, software expenses and the management fee paid by assessee to the AE should not be disallowed. The assessee filed its submission, which after considering, the Ld.AO made following disallowances: Foreign ... exchange loss: Rs.94,93,766/- Management fee: Rs.16,80,397/- Software expenses: Rs. 24,786/- Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. Before the LdCIT(A), it was contended by the assessee that it accounted for the exchange loss/gain on foreign currency balance

Asstt. CIT -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 908/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 908 & 909/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2012-13) बिधम/ Acit Circle-3(1)(1) M/S. Rideema Toll Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, 6Th Floor, M/S. Roche Diagnostic India Pvt. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Ltd. 501-B, 5Th Floor, Silver Utopia Road, Mumbai-400020. Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0266H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13. Ita. No.909/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Made On

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 40

account of support services, out of which Rs. 7,88,113/- pertains to web access and Rs.22,61,908/- pertained to management fees and cost allocation of A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13 employees for the appellant. To substantiate the above remittances, the Appellant submitted copy of debit notes and invoices ... case for A.Y.2011-12, that the abovementioned expenses except A.Ys.2013-14 & 2012-13 reimbursement of license cost to F Hoffmann La Roche AG and management fees and cost of employees to Roche USA are held to be in the nature of reimbursement of expenses based on which

Sabmiller India Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7157/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 3. The Ground Nos. 3.1 – 3.4 raised by the assessee are challenging the disallowance of management fees of Rs.29,76,67,534/- paid by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) by determining the arm‟s length price ... been subjected to audit and certification by an independent Accountant. 3.5. The ld. TPO ignoring the aforesaid submissions and explanations determined the ALP of Management fees paid at Rs. „Nil‟ passed on the action taken by him for A.Y.2011-12 thereby making an adjustment of Rs.29,76,67,534/-. 3.6. This

M/S Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 655/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting companies having significant related party transactions in the testing services segment. C. IT and Management Fees: 9. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not taking cognizance of the facts submitted by the Appellant with ... regard to the payment of IT and management fees and disallowed the same stating that the arm's length price paid on the same is NIL. 10. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method

Ul India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 574/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting companies having significant related party transactions in the testing services segment. C. IT and Management Fees: 9. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not taking cognizance of the facts submitted by the Appellant with ... regard to the payment of IT and management fees and disallowed the same stating that the arm's length price paid on the same is NIL. 10. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S U.L. India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 378/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.574/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kalyani Platina – Block I, 3Rd Floor, 24, Epip Circle -7(1)(1), Zone, Phase – 2Nd, Whitefield, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Appellant Respondent C.O.No.127/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.378/Bang/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Circle -7(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 066. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Cross Objector Respondent It(Tp)A No.655/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ul India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 066. Circle -7(1)(1), Pan : Aaacu 2468 F Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92C

learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting companies having significant related party transactions in the testing services segment. C. IT and Management Fees: 9. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in not taking cognizance of the facts submitted by the Appellant with ... regard to the payment of IT and management fees and disallowed the same stating that the arm's length price paid on the same is NIL. 10. The learned AO / learned TPO and the Honourable DRP have erred in selecting Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method ("CUP") as the most appropriate method

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

justified in deleting the addition of Rs.8,85,609/- made by the AO/TPO on account of technical management fees without appreciating that the TPO on account of technical management fees without appreciating that the TPO made the adjustment not on the sufficiency of the mark up but on the inclusion ... made the adjustment in sum of Rs.31,05,38,469/-. The following adjustments were made:- (i) Technical Management Fees Rs.8,85,609/- (ii) Inchartering of Vessels Rs.30,96,52,860/- Total Rs.31,05,58,469/- 4. The same amount was also included in the book profit u/s 115JB

L& T Hochtief Seabird Joint Venure, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 669/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm L&T Hochtief Seabird Joint The Dy. Commissioner Of Venture Income Tax, Range 12(2), Room No. 114, 1 St Floor, Taxation Department, L&T Vs. House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaal0284E

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 158ASection 234B

being technical leadership fees paid to M/s Hochtief A.G., Germany. 5. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹94,870/- being construction management fees paid to M/s Hochtief A.G. Germany. 6. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹47,435/- being, H O expenses reimbursed

Dsv Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 922/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledvs Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional/Joint/ A-203, The Qube, Cts Assistant No. 1489, Mv Road, Commissioner Of Marol, Andheri East, Income Tax, National Mumbai – 400059. E- Assessment Centre, Delhi. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu5306L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Karishmaprataphekar.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.KarishmaPrataphekar.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(1)

emphasized on the facts in respect of upward adjustment by the TPO and was confirmed by the DRP in respect of management fees i.e APAC regional cost, payment of enterprise global cost and payment of enterprise LED cost. The Honble Tribunal has dealt on these expenses in the assessee ... took note of the fact that in assessment year 2010–11, the Transfer Pricing Officer himself has accepted the reimbursement of the administrative expenses / management fee paid to the AEs to be at arm's length. Thus, considering the past event and the revenue sharing model consistently followed

ITO 22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Arcil Asset Reconstruction Fund II Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 889/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us :-

Section 143(3)Section 61Section 63

allowing expense of 7,74,25,409 which was made by the assessee for protection, preservation , insurance expenses and management fees from such investment activity upon redemption of the principal amount of Security Receipts (SR). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... realised over a period of time and distributed among the SR Holders as per the provisions of offer document / trust deed after adjusting the management fees and other expenses incurred by the trust. As per the trust deed, the beneficiaries are the persons who are SR Holders and are identified

Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 763/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

para 9 of this order, after taking into consideration the submission of the assessee it is evident that the assessee has received project management fees from the group company on account of rendering project management services, and not because of advancing of interest free fund to these group companies

Jt CIT(OSD) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Realty and Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 730/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

para 9 of this order, after taking into consideration the submission of the assessee it is evident that the assessee has received project management fees from the group company on account of rendering project management services, and not because of advancing of interest free fund to these group companies