{"id":62792,"date":"2026-07-30T10:24:30","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T04:54:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dy-cit-v-apollo-gleneagles-hospital-ltd-2023-150-taxmann-com-210-2025-129-itr-352-koltrib\/"},"modified":"2026-07-30T10:24:30","modified_gmt":"2026-07-30T04:54:30","slug":"dy-cit-v-apollo-gleneagles-hospital-ltd-2023-150-taxmann-com-210-2025-129-itr-352-koltrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dy-cit-v-apollo-gleneagles-hospital-ltd-2023-150-taxmann-com-210-2025-129-itr-352-koltrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Dy.CIT v. Apollo Gleneagles Hospital Ltd. [2023] 150 taxmann.com 210 \/ (2025) 129 ITR 352 (Kol)(Trib)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Held that where assessee-hospital made payment of management fee to AE for advisory services and use of brand name at rate of 2.5 per cent of gross operating revenue and applied TNMM as most appropriate method, TPO was not justified in making downward adjustment by taking management fee expense at &#8216;Nil&#8217; under CUP method disregarding TNMM employed by assessee as most appropriate method without pointing any defects in application or relevance of TNMM in this case.. Tribunal also held that the\u00a0 payment of management fee for advisory services and use of brand name, said services received by assessee could not be labelled as shareholder\/stewardship services. (AY. 2012-13, 2013-14)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 92C: Transfer pricing-Arm\u2019s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Management fee for advisory-TPO was not justified in making a downward adjustment by taking management fee expense at &#8216;Nil&#8217; under CUP method, disregarding TNMM employed by assessee as most appropriate method, without pointing out any defects in application or relevance of TNMM by the assessee-Payment of management fee for advisory services and use of brand name, said services received by assessee could not be labelled as shareholder\/stewardship services.[S.92CA]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gkM","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62792"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62792\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":62793,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62792\/revisions\/62793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}