ACIT CC 34, MUMBAI V. FANKLIN TEMPLETON ASSET MANAGEMENT (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4991/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75459 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH RANJAN PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: F V IRANI

Judgement Text

` , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F B ENCH, MUMBAI , , !' #$% , !& ! ' BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JM AND SHRI N.K. BIL LAIYA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 4991/MUM/2012 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ITO -10(1)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S. FRANKLIN TEMPLETON ASSET MANAGEMENT *INDIA) PVT. LTD., INDIABULLS FINANCE CENTRE, TOWER-2, 12 TH & 13 TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE (W), MUMBAI -400 013 ) !& ./ * ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACT 1609B ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . ! / APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJESH RANJAN PRASAD ,-)+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI F.V. IRANI / 01& / DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2014 23( / 01& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :29. 01.2014 !4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-41, MUMBAI DT.04.05.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO. 4991/M/2012 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 75,41,34,000/- MADE BY THE AO BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY FEES COMPUTED AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CONTRACTING PART Y ON THE GROUND THAT SEBI REGULATIONS PERMITTED THE LESSER Q UANTUM OF FEE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING AC TUAL AGREEMENT AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E ITAT AND HON. HIGH COURT FOR EARLIER YEARS WHERE THE DEC ISIONS OF THE EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT BASED ON AGREEMENT BU T BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS 52(2) OF SEBI REGU LATIONS. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE SETTLED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND TH E HONBLE HIGH COURTS DECISIONS WERE NOT BASED ON THE AGREEMENT BU T ARE BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS 52(2) OF SEBI REGULATIONS . 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMIT TED THAT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR AND ALSO THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E REVENUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 ARE AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE INAS MUCH AS IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON IDENTICAL L INE WITH IDENTICAL WORDINGS. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HIGH CO URT AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS . WE FIND FORCE IN THE ITA NO. 4991/M/2012 3 CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. CONSIDERING ALL THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2014 . !4 / 3( & ! 5 6 7 29.01.2014 3 / 8 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER !& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 6 DATED 29.01.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS !4 !4 !4 !4 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 9!(0 9!(0 9!(0 9!(0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. : / CIT 5. ;8 ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8< / GUARD FILE. !4 !4 !4 !4 / BY ORDER, -0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// = == = / > > > > (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI