Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.67 seconds)
Dcit 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Tl, ... on 17 February, 2022 cites

Carlyle India Advisors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs Dcit 14 (1)(2), Mumbai on 14 February, 2020

413/Mum/2015] 2010-11 8 3i India Private Limited v. DCIT [ITA No. 581/Mum/2015] 2010-11 9 AGM India Advisors Private Limited [ITA No. 4757/Mum/2015] 2010-11 10 Carlyle India Advisors Private Limited [ITA No. 1040/Mum/2015 2010-11 11 FIL Capital Advisors India Private Limited v. DCIT [ITA No. 7403/Mum/2014] 2010-11 12 AGM India Advisors Private Limited [ITA No. 537/Mum/2016] 2011-12 13 Carlyle India Advisors Private Limited v. DCIT -10(1) [ITA No. 2200/ Mum/2014] 2009-10 14 Carlyle India Advisors Private Limited v. DCIT -10(1), Mumbai [ITA No. 7367/Mum/2012] 2008-09 9.4 The ld . AR carrying the Bench through the TP O's order and the objections of the assessee posed before the DRP and the rejection by the DRP submitted that in the facts of the Goldman Sachs (India) Securities P.Ltd. V DCIT ITA NO.1115 & 1546/MUM/2015 (A.Y.2010-11) Page 14 of 66 present case Moti Lal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. has wrongly been included as a valid comparable. Considering the judicial precedent in assessee's own cases read along with orders of the ITAT in similarly identical orders pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year, the prayer of the assessee in the absence of any change in fact or circumstance, it was submitted may be allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 vs M/S. General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd on 12 March, 2019

(c) Further, Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue my fairly points out that a similar issue as arising herein, was a subject matter of consideration by this Court in Income (CIT v. General Atlantic (P.) Ltd. [2016] 68 taxmann.com 88 (Bom.). In the above case also the Assessee was engaged in the business of advisory services like the Respondent here and the TPO had relied upon the comparable selected by him in the case of Carlyle India Advisors (P.)
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - S V Kotwal - Full Document

Genpact India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 November, 2019

4. We notice that similar issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in case of Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 10(1), Mumbai. The Tribunal considered the instance of Motilal Oswal and discarded the same relying on the earlier decision in case of the very same assessee in which the Tribunal had inter-alia observed that the profit and loss account appears to be only consolidated account. The company is registered with SEBI as a merchant banker. It was further observed that the said company was engaged in merchant banking.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 250 - U U Lalit - Full Document

M/S.Sundaram Fin.Ltd vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income ... on 11 September, 2012

6. ( a ) We found that during the subject Assessment Year, the Respondent- Assessee was providing services of Broking Sendees, Business Support Services and Investment advisory sendees to its customers. The TPO had adopted a list of comparable companies which were primarily engaged in providing services as merchant banker as comparable to determine the ALP in respect of the Investment Advisory Services rendered by it to its AEs . The companies selected by the TPO were identical to one selected in Carlyle India Advisors ( P ) Ltd., The aforesaid decision of the TPO in Carlyle (I) Advisors (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 176 (Mum.) was a subject matter of consideration by the Tribunal in ITA No. 7901/Mum/2011. The Tribunal after examining the business of each of the individual comparable concluded that they were different from that of the services provided by Carlyle India Advisors (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 237 - Full Document

Dcit (Tds)1(1), Mumbai vs Accenture Services P.Ltd, Mumbai on 9 November, 2016

• As the Assessee is required to pay aforesaid sum to GSGI on account of the grant of the RSUs to its employees, such payment being an actual expenditure for the Assessee is considered as part of the compensation cost of the employees in the year in which it is incurred in accordance with the method of accounting followed 5.2.2 Therefore, the ESOP expenses should not be regarded as contingent or notional and it should be allowed as deduction u/s 37(1) of the IT. Act. The appellant had relied on the decision of DCIT v Accenture Services P Ltd [ITA No. 4540/M/08 order dated 23rd March 2010] and Novo Nordisk India Private Limited v DCIT -12(2) (ITA No.1275/Bang/2011) (Bang Trib).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next