← 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

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt.. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1231/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, C.R. Building vs. Aircom International India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3096/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. M/S Aircom International India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), M-12, Balrama House, New Delhi. Karampura Complex, Opp. Milan Cinema, Karam Pura West Delhi Delhi – 110 015. Pan: Aadca0915A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate; Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate; & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate. Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

software solutions and consultancy services in the area of telecommunications. The ld. AO has made a disallowance on account of software licence fee, management fee, bad debts and depreciation. The ld.CIT(A) has deleted the same for which the Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of disallowance of management ... fee, bad debts and disallowance of depreciation. 5. As we go through the impugned order, we find that the management fee expenses have been allowed on the basis that: “4.1. The assessing officer has disallowed management fee expenses due to lack of supporting documents such as bills/invoices/advices even though

Bundy India Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, Ground Number 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1403/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Bundy India Limited The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.2, Circle-1(1) V/S. Gidc Industrial Estate, Baroda Makarpura Vadodaria - 390 010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacb 3039 M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(3)

AQ/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts, in holding that the international transaction of payment of management fees by the appellant to its associated enterprises is not at arm's length and considering arm's length price of management charges as Nil. 5.2. The Id. AO/CIT(A) erred ... facts, in disregarding aggregation of management fees with the manufacturing segment as adopted by the appellant for benchmarking the international transactions. 5.3. The Id. AO/CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in applying comparable uncontrolled price (CUP) method as most appropriate method under Rule10B(1)(a) of Income

Aka Ausfuhrkredit-Gesellschaft Mbh, Outside India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Int Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115A(1)(b)Section 147Section 148Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

15CA data uploaded by M/s Filatex India Ltd., it was noticed that M/s Filatex India Ltd. had made foreign remittances toward Management Fee (Processing Fee) amounting to Rs.87.34,375/- to the assessee and no TDS has been deducted on these remittances. 3.2 According to the AO, the above information ... analyzed and it was noticed that Mis Filakex India Ltd. had made foreign remittances towards Management Fee (Processing Fee) on ECB Loan Guaranteed by Harmes Deckung Germany to the assessee and had claimed relief as per Article 11 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany. According

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4162/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

maintenance and management to maintain and upkeep the property. Such fees were directly payable to the management of assessee. On failure to pay such management fees, the assessee had right to revoke the membership. Over a period of 15 years, membership of various members was revoked and assessee acquired ... acquisition / revocation of requisition was in fact resulted in removal of encumbrances over the properties of assessee. The acquisition price was determined as outstanding management fees along with a mark-up of 10% of the cost towards the recovery efforts. The payment of outstanding Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 are

ITA 4161/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 2(11)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253(3)Section 254(1)

maintenance and management to maintain and upkeep the property. Such fees were directly payable to the management of assessee. On failure to pay such management fees, the assessee had right to revoke the membership. Over a period of 15 years, membership of various members was revoked and assessee acquired ... acquisition / revocation of requisition was in fact resulted in removal of encumbrances over the properties of assessee. The acquisition price was determined as outstanding management fees along with a mark-up of 10% of the cost towards the recovery efforts. The payment of outstanding Prestige Holiday Resorts Private Limited

Fullerton Financial Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax - (International Taxation), Circle 2(3)(1) - Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1137/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

employees are hired to support the operations of FFH as a strategic investor. FFHI renders management services to FFH and charges a management fee plus mark-up on an arms-length basis. Such management fee expenses are expenses incurred for operations of FFH. • FFH has submitted documents in past submissions ... hired to support the operations of FFH as a strategic investor. Assessee further stated that FFHI renders management services to FFH and charges a management fee plus mark-up on an arms-length basis and the costs so charged comprised the full salary costs of FFHI employees. The assessee

Tupperware India Private Limited, Connaught Place New Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ip Estate New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly

ITA 4475/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92BSection 92C

assessee.” 19.1 Accordingly, the ground No.5 is allowed. 21 20. Ground No.6: This ground arises out of the adjustment on account of payment of Management Fees. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the AO has erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the assessee in respect of payment

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, Mathura Road, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 433/DEL/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

Lg Electronics India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 430/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2035/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi vs. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1267/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-15(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 9000/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 7424/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6838/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

M/S Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 991/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

DCIT, Noida vs. M/S. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1969/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The ld DR before us vehemently submitted that in respect of management fees, the assessee did not produce the cost allocation basis even through this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, Delhi, New Delhi vs. M/S Jkm Infra Projects Ltd., Noida, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 3031/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Vs. M/S. Jkm Infra Projects Ltd, Central Circle-19, Sector-9, Noida Delhi Maharishinagar, Maharishi Nagar, So Gautam Budh Nagar, Up 201304 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcj3577H Co 132/Del/2025 (In Ita No. 3031/Del/2025) (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Jkm Infra Projects Ltd, Vs. Acit, Sector-9, Noida Central Circle-19, Maharishinagar, Maharishi Delhi Nagar, So Gautam Budh Nagar, Up 201304 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcj3577H

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)

arrangements operated by the group entities like export sales made to AEs at very low markup, import purchases made from AEs at unjustified markup, management fees paid to AEs without any actual services received, Purchase of RAW materials from AEs, R&D services provided to AEs at low mark

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4246/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2022-23 Lic Mutual Fund Asset Dcit-1(2)(1), Management Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Building, Mumbai-400020. Opp: Churchgate Station, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaacj1166H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Ravikant Pathak For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, [„Ld.Pcit‟], Dated 07-03- 2025, U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 (Hereinafter Referred As Hon'Ble Pcit] Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") & Passing The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

from the sale of shares purchased and held by LIC Mutual Fund 4. For disclosing income from management of Mutual Fund and from portfolio management fees on net basis instead of gross basis. Hence the expenditure in relation to above has been hidden and could not have been examined ... from the sale of shares purchased and held by LIC Mutual Fund iv. For disclosing income from management of Mutual Fund and from portfolio management fees on net basis instead of gross basis. Hence the expenditure in relation to above has been hidden and could not have been examined

DCIT Intl. Tax Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi vs. Everest Global Inc., Usa

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1272/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

party clients Rs 98,79,734 2 Everest Business Advisory India Pvt. Ltd 3 ---Royalty (already offered to tax) Rs 53,93,479 4 -- Management Fees Rs 3,68,24,669 5 --Reimbursement Rs. 4,32,583 The AO noticed that except for Royalty ... party clients of Rs 98,79,734/; for reports sold to third party clients of Rs 1,86,07,394/- and on account of Management fees of Rs 25,62,365/-. The CIT(A), however, sustained the additions of Rs 1,56,54,910/- made on account of Marketing