“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

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1271/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1270/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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 of Rs 53,93,479/-, the assessee ... 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

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1269/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Everest Global Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1135/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)

Everest Global Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1134/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Everest Global Inc, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1133/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Everest Global Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1132/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Everest Global Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1131/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Everest Global Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1130/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)

Getinge India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4341/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 234Section 234CSection 250Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43A

erred in not granting the allowance of Rs. 2,14,265 which was erroneously disallowed by the Appellant. 3. Ground 3: Disallowance of management fees and IT cost amounting to Rs. 76,85,446 under normal provisions of the Act. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in disallowing management fees and IT costs aggregating to Rs. 76,85,446 paid by the Appellant to its associated enterprise, Getinge AB, without duly appreciating that the said expenditure was incurred

Keller Asiapacific Limited, Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation

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

ITA 3540/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3540/दिल्ली/2023 (नि.व. 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

pressing ground no. 1 to 3 of appeal. The only ground assailed by the assessee is ground no 4, relating to taxability of management fees as Fee for Technical Services (FTS). 2. 1. Narrating facts of the case, he submitted that the assessee was incorporated in Singapore ... Indian AE are given in Schedule 1 to said agreement at page no. 126 & 127. In lieu of providing services, the assessee receives management fee from Keller India. The services are in nature of strategic management consultancy services, legal services, engineering & technical advice, marketing & advertising services, human capital, procurement

Rubicon Research Limited (Formerly Known As Rubicon Research Private Limited), Thane, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6647/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6647/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubicon Research V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly बिधम Income Tax- Circle Known As Rubicon 15(3)(1), Mumbai Research Private Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Limited) Karve Road, New Marine Medone House, B-75, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai Road No. 33, Wagle 400020 Estate, Thane 400604. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1422M Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmali (Sr Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

entered between AEs as per Group Policy, does not carry any independent value. Further, the copy of methodology and calculation of the allocation of management fees is also a theoretical document. The inter-company agreement, entered between Associated Enterprises, do not carry the force of conviction, as compared

Guala Closures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Panaji vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji.

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

ITA 62/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A.No.62/Pan/2017 (A.Y.2012-13 ) Guala Closures(India) Vs. I T O Ward1(1), Private Limited, Aaykar Bhavan, D-1, Seasa Ghor, Edc, Patto, 20,Edc Complex, Panjim-403001. Patto, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa Pan/Gir No.:Aaacg4447J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Nirajsheth. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Satish M .CIT DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

67/PAN/2017 Guala Closures (India) Private Limited. raised grounds of appeal challenging the action of lower authorities in determining the ALP pertaining to management fees as Nil and also the lower authorities erred in passing the orders without considering the submissions and evidences. 2. The assessee has raised two additional grounds ... international transactions with its Associate Enterprises(AE) and the basis of computation of ALP. On the disputed issue in respect of payment of management fees, the TPO observed that there is no proof of any services having actually been rendered by the Associate Enterprises ”AE” and such services are mere

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 80I

directions of the Ld.DRP. We observe that in that case there is an issue of determination of arm's length price of payment towards management fees, global sales and marketing activities fees. We do not intend to follow this decision of the ITAT Bengaluru bench for the simple reason that

O.C Tanner India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is, accordingly, he appeal is, accordingly, allowed for statistical allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5785/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 O.C. Tanner India Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3)(1), No. 2, Lave 7 Tower 2, Phase Ii, 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Raiaskaran Techpark Andheri Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Sakinaka S.O. Mumbai, Mumbai-400072. Pan No. Aabco 1031 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, CA

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

depreciation set off (-) 11,78,16,880 ) 11,78,16,880 3 TP Adjustments TP Adjustments 6,83,85,549 5,29,72,345 - Management Fee Management Fee - Marketing Services Marketing Services 1,51,15,557 - Interest on Receivables Interest on Receivables 2,97,647 4 Total Income (Loss) Total ... methodology and ependent value. Further, the copy of methodology and ependent value. Further, the copy of methodology and calculation of the allocation of management fees and calculation of the allocation of management fees and calculation of the allocation of management fees and marketing fees is also a theoretical document

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

found that appellant company has permitted use Trade Mark/Brand by SPI for a token consideration of Rs.1/-. Moreover, SPI has not paid any management fees to the appellant company although three of its Directors and key management personnel have been looking after the business of SPI also. It is also

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

found that appellant company has permitted use Trade Mark/Brand by SPI for a token consideration of Rs. 1/-. Moreover, SPI has not paid any management fees to the appellant company although three of its Directors and key management personnel have been looking after the business of SPI also

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

found that appellant company has permitted use Trade Mark/Brand by SPI for a token consideration of Rs. 1/-. Moreover, SPI has not paid any management fees to the appellant company although three of its Directors and key management personnel have been looking after the business of SPI also

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune vs. M/S. IAC International Automotive India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand

Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

International Amount (in INR) Most Appropriate No. Transaction Method 1. Rendering of offshore 134,764,629 Transactional Net engineering services Margin Method („TNMM‟) 2. Management fee payable 33,221,272 TNMM (Availing Business Support Services) 3. Interest paid on ECB 7,067,816 Other Method 4. ECB loan taken ... management. IAC Shanghai was remunerated for these services on the basis of all allocable cost along with a 5% markup. Accordingly, the assessee paid management fee of Rs. 33,221,272 to (“IAC Shanghai”). The assessee selected TNMM for benchmarking the said international transactions of management fee with IAC Shanghai

Nsdc Skill Impact Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2154/DEL/2025[2023-24 TO 2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

services to NSDC for consideration of payment of 10% on actual expenses as compensation. The assessee submitted before the ld CIT(E) that 10% management fee collected is only to recover the operation cost incurred by the assessee trust. It is not profit driven fee charges but only reimbursement ... assessee and concluded that the assessee has not engaged in the charitable activities but only engaged in rendering services of collection of management fees of 10%. Hence, he concluded that the activities carried out by the assessee are business/ target oriented and commercial in nature rather than charity-focused. Accordingly