Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees not deductible from Capital Gains, ITAT affirms decision.</h1> <h3>Devendra Motilal Kothari Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-16 (2), Mumbai</h3> The ITAT Mumbai held that fees paid for Portfolio Management Services (PMS) are not deductible when computing Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and Short Term ... Capital Gains - claim for deduction on account of fees for Portfolio Management Services (PMS) while computing Long Term Capital Gain (STCG) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) arising from sale of shares and securities. - As provided in section 48, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer and the cost of acquisition of the asset and cost of any improvement thereto are deductible from the full value of the consideration received or accruing to the assessee as a result of transfer of the capital assets. - Held that:- Assessee failed to explain as to how the said fees could be considered as cost of acquisition of the shares and securities or the cost of any improvement thereto. He has also failed to explain as to how the said fees could be treated as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with sale of shares and securities. - There is no direct nexus with the purchase of shares and - Decided against the assessee.Diversion of income - theory of real income and the rule of diversion of income by an overriding title. - Held that:- the payment of fees by the assessee for PMS did not amount to diversion of income by overriding title and the contentions raised by the assessee in this regard cannot be accepted being devoid of any merit. - the theory of real income cannot be applied to allow deduction to the assessee which is otherwise not permissible under the Income-tax Act. - Decision of Apex Court in CIT v. Udayan Chinubhai [1996 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] followed. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of fees for Portfolio Management Services (PMS) while computing Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG).Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Fees for Portfolio Management Services (PMS)1. Background and Assessee's Claim:- The assessee, an individual, filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 1,40,02,396, which included LTCG and STCG from the sale of shares and securities.- The assessee added fees paid for PMS amounting to Rs. 85,63,233 to the purchase cost of shares while computing LTCG and STCG.- The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this addition, arguing that PMS fees were not part of the purchase cost of shares.2. Assessee's Submissions:- The assessee contended that PMS fees should be considered part of the cost of purchase and thus deductible while computing capital gains.- The assessee cited several case laws to support the claim that expenses related to managing investments should be deductible.3. Assessing Officer's Decision:- The AO rejected the assessee's claim, stating that PMS fees were not part of the acquisition cost of shares or units.- The AO held that PMS fees did not qualify as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of assets.4. CIT(A)'s Findings:- The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting that PMS fees were based on the market value or net value of assets and had no direct nexus with the acquisition or transfer of specific assets.- The CIT(A) emphasized that allowable deductions while computing capital gains are specifically provided under section 48, which includes:- Cost of acquisition,- Cost of any improvement,- Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of assets.- The CIT(A) concluded that PMS fees did not fit into any of these categories.5. Arguments Before ITAT:- The assessee's counsel reiterated that PMS fees should be deductible under section 48 as they were incurred in connection with the acquisition and sale of shares.- Alternatively, the counsel argued that PMS fees should be deductible based on the Real Income Theory and the rule of diversion of income by overriding title.6. ITAT's Analysis:- The ITAT examined whether PMS fees could be considered as cost of acquisition, cost of improvement, or expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of shares.- The ITAT found that PMS fees had no direct nexus with the purchase or sale of shares and were payable irrespective of any specific transaction.- The ITAT noted that the assessee failed to provide a basis for allocating PMS fees to specific transactions.- The ITAT also rejected the application of the Real Income Theory and the rule of diversion of income by overriding title, stating that these principles could not override the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act.7. Conclusion:- The ITAT upheld the disallowance of PMS fees while computing LTCG and STCG, agreeing with the AO and CIT(A) that such fees did not qualify as deductible expenses under section 48.- The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.Summary:The ITAT Mumbai ruled that fees paid for Portfolio Management Services (PMS) are not deductible while computing Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). The tribunal upheld the decisions of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), concluding that PMS fees do not constitute the cost of acquisition, cost of improvement, or expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of shares. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found