Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

DCIT 2(1), R No. 561, 5th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. Vs. M/s Deutsche Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., 222, Kodak House, D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001.
June, 15th 2015
                      "K"                     

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K"             BENCH,     MUMBAI
        BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND
            SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                   ./I.T.A. No.789/ Mum/2014
             (     /      Assessment Year : 2009-2010

DCIT ­ 2(1),                      /         M/s Deutsche Asset
R No. 561, 5 t h floor,                     Management (India) Pvt.
                                  Vs.
Aayakar Bhavan,                             Ltd.,
M.K. Road,                                  222, Kodak House,
Mumbai ­ 400 020.                           D.N. Road, Fort,
                                            Mumbai ­ 400001.
                                 . / PAN : AABCD5226D
     ( /Appellant)           ..         (  / Respondent)

      Appellant by                Shri Padmanabhan
      Respondent by :             Shri Niraj Sheth
          / Date of Hearing                    : 07-04-2015
         /Date of Pronouncement : 12-06-2015
                                    [

                        / O R D E R
PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M.

      This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the assessment
order dated 6-12-2013 passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the
Act in conformity with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel -
1, Mumbai ("DRP").






2.    The Revenue has aggrieved by the decision of DRP in deleting the
adjustment of Rs. 1.50 crores made by the Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO").

3.     We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee
company is engaged in the business of providing investment advisory and
marketing support services. The assessee company provided advisory services
                                   2       ITA 789/M/11




to its Associated Enterprises ("AEs") named Deutsche Asset Management
(Asia) Limited (in short "DAMAL"), Singapore. DAMAL is a fund Manager for
Deutsche India Equity Fund. In consideration for providing such advisory
services, DAMAL has given 50% shares of the fees received by it to the
assessee. The TPO noticed that the assessee has received share of 70% of the
fees from another AE, Germany for providing liaisoning/marketing support
services to it. Though the assessee had bench marked the transactions under
TNMM with net cost plus margin, the TPO held that the said method is not
acceptable. The TPO further held that the assessee should have taken share
of 70% of fees for advisory services provided to DAMAL also. Accordingly, he
proposed to adjustment of Rs. 1.50 crores to the income returned by the
assessee.

4.    Before the ld. DRP, it was contended that the TPO has proposed
adjustment by using a controlled transaction entered between the assessee
and its AE in Germany to benchmark another controlled transaction entered
into by the assessee with its AEs at Singapore. It was further submitted that
the assessee was providing advisory services to DAMAL, Singapore which is
functionally different from the liasioning/marketing support services provided
to another AE located in Germany.       The ld. DRP agreed with both the
contentions of the assessee and accordingly deleted the transfer pricing
adjustment proposed by the TPO.

5.    At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that
an identical adjustment made in the assessee's own case in A.Y. 2006-07
came to be considered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.
7717/Mum/2010 and the Tribunal vide its order dated 12-12-2012 has given
a clear finding that the fee received by the assessee for providing marketing
and liasioning services cannot be equated with the advisory services given to
an investment manager. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the adjustment
                                       3       ITA 789/M/11









proposed by the TPO, which had also been confirmed by the ld. DRP in that
year. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the TPO, in the
subsequent years, has accepted the fact that the services provided to AEs
located in Singapore and Germany are different and accordingly did not
propose any adjustment in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

6.       The ld. D.R. did not controvert the factual aspects presented by the ld.
Counsel for the assessee.

7.       We further notice that the ld. DRP has followed his decision rendered
by it in A.Y. 2008-09 in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. We have
already seen that the Tribunal, in assessment year 2006-07, has given a
finding that the services provided to AE, Singapore cannot be equated with
the kind of services provided to AE, Germany. Accordingly the Co-ordinate
bench has deleted the TP adjustment made in AY 2006-07. Since the facts
and circumstances of the issue are identical in the instant year also, by
following the order passed by the Tribunal in the hands of the assessee for AY
2006-07, we uphold the order of ld. DRP on this issue.

8.       In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.


        Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2015.

                                 12-06-2015    



                                                                 Sd/-
                Sd/-
        (D. MANMOHAN)                                (B.R. BASKARAN)
        VICE PRESIDENT                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
  Mumbai;                 Dated 12-06-2015
                                       [
     . ../ RK , Sr. PS
                                            4      ITA 789/M/11




               /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.    / The Appellant
2.      / The Respondent.
3.   The DRP, Concerned, , Mumbai

4.   TPO, Mumbai
5.             ,     ,  / DR, ITAT, Mumbai K Bench

6.     / Guard file.
                                                                    / BY ORDER,

                            //True Copy//
                                                       /  (Dy./Asstt.   Registrar)
                                                           ,   / ITAT, Mumbai

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting