TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants 40% discount on transfer pricing adjustment, upholds CIT(A)'s decisions.</h1> <h3>Morgan Stanley India company P. Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Range 4 (3), Mumbai And (Vice-Versa)</h3> Morgan Stanley India company P. Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Range 4 (3), Mumbai And (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Brokerage Commission2. Disallowance of Overseas Support Service Fees3. Disallowance of Remuneration under Section 40A(2)4. Disallowance under Section 14A5. Disallowance of Transaction Charges, Lease Line Charges, and VSAT Charges under Section 40(a)(ia)Detailed Analysis:1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment on Brokerage Commission:The primary issue was the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on brokerage commission earned from associated enterprises (AEs) in Mauritius and the UK. The AO adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method, while the assessee preferred the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The CIT(A) upheld the use of the CUP method, citing it as more direct. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's contention for TNMM. However, it granted a 40% discounting adjustment for brokerage services provided to AEs, following precedents from earlier years. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and adjust the arms-length price (ALP) accordingly.2. Disallowance of Overseas Support Service Fees:The AO disallowed the payment of Rs. 6,24,08,002/- made to Morgan Stanley International Inc. for overseas support services, determining the ALP at nil. The CIT(A) deleted this adjustment, referencing his decision from the previous year, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, noting that the cost was reimbursed without any markup and that similar issues in earlier years had been resolved in favor of the assessee.3. Disallowance of Remuneration under Section 40A(2):The AO disallowed remuneration paid to Mr. Ashith Kampani, exceeding the limit prescribed by the Ministry of Law and Justice. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, recognizing Mr. Kampani's extensive experience and finding no evidence that the remuneration was excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the approval under the Companies Act does not dictate disallowance under the Income Tax Act.4. Disallowance under Section 14A:The AO disallowed Rs. 78,93,438/- under Section 14A, applying Rule 8D. The CIT(A) limited the disallowance to Rs. 1 lakh, stating that Rule 8D applies only from AY 2008-09. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing similar rulings in the assessee's favor from previous years.5. Disallowance of Transaction Charges, Lease Line Charges, and VSAT Charges under Section 40(a)(ia):The AO disallowed Rs. 1,72,51,564/- paid to stock exchanges for transaction, lease line, and VSAT charges, citing non-deduction of tax at source under Sections 194J and 194C. The CIT(A) ruled these charges as mere infrastructure support costs, not requiring TDS. The Tribunal confirmed this view, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Kotak Securities Limited, which classified these as standard services not necessitating TDS.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, granting relief on the transfer pricing adjustment by applying a 40% discount. It dismissed the AO's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on overseas support service fees, remuneration under Section 40A(2), disallowance under Section 14A, and transaction charges under Section 40(a)(ia). The judgment emphasized adherence to precedents and detailed verification of facts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
