{"id":211763,"date":"2011-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011"},"modified":"2017-10-03T13:26:06","modified_gmt":"2017-10-03T07:56:06","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income … vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management … on 12 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income … vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management … on 12 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: J.P. Devadhar, K. K. Tated<\/div>\n
                                           1                        43 ITXA 1043-10.doc\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\nK\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                     INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n    The Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-III                    .. Appellant\n    R.No.109, Aayakar Bhavan,\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020.\n\n          Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    M\/s. Templeton Asset Management (India)\n    Pvt. Ltd.             \n    First Floor, Sahakar Bhavan,\n    Nariman Point,\n    Mumbai - 400 021                                              .. Respondent.\n                         \n    Mr. Suresh Kumar a\/w Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.\n    Mr. F.V. Irani a\/w Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Respondent.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                              CORAM        : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                              DATE         : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n    JUDGMENT:(Per J.P. Devadhar, J.)\n\n\n    1     The Appeal is admitted on the following questions of law and taken \n\n\n\n\n\n    up for hearing by consent of the parties:  \n\n\n\n    a)    Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble  \n<\/pre>\n
    Tribunal, in law, was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT (A) in  <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:43:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2                         43 ITXA 1043-10.doc<\/p>\n
    not sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer being the difference
\n    between the amount of investment advisory fees computed at the maximum  <\/p>\n
    rates specified in Regulation 52(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of
\n    India   (Mutual   Fund)   Regulation,   1996   (SEBI   Regulations)   and   actually  <\/p>\n
    charged by the Assessee?\n<\/p>\n
    b)       Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble  <\/p>\n
    Tribunal, in law, was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT (A) in
\n    not   sustaining   the   addition   made   by   the   Assessing   Officer   relating   to   the  <\/p>\n
    recurring   and   marketing   expenses   without   appreciating   the   fact   that   this
\n    amount   of   expenditure   the   AMC   was   empowered   to   charge   under   SEBI  <\/p>\n
    Regulations   to   the   Mutual   Fund,   but   it   has   charged   the   same   to   its   own
\n    accounts, thereby reducing its taxable income, and hence not be allowable as <\/p>\n
    deduction in view of the provisions of section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act,
\n    1961?\n<\/p>\n
    c)      Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble  <\/p>\n
    Tribunal, in law, was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT (A) in
\n    not sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer being towards 2\/3 rd
\n    share of recurring expenses in excess of the limits specified in Regulation 52  <\/p>\n
    (7) of SEBI Regulation which was borne by the Assessee without appreciating
\n    the fact that the amount of expenditure, which becomes the liability either of
\n    the sponsor or the trustee of the Mutual Fund, is not deductible under section  <\/p>\n
    37(1) of the Income Tax Act in the hands of the Assessee Company”\n<\/p>\n
    d)      Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble
\n    Tribunal, in law, was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT (A) in
\n    not sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of initial issue  <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:43:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     3                         43 ITXA 1043-10.doc<\/p>\n
    expenses of the Mutual Fund Scheme incurred by the Assessee which pertain to
\n    the business of the Mutual Fund, without appreciating the fact that these are <\/p>\n
    the expenses incurred by the Assessee Company on behalf of Mutual Fund and
\n    are   pertaining   to   Schemes   which   are   of   Mutual   Fund   which   the   Assessee  <\/p>\n
    Company was empowered by the SEBI Regulations to charge to the Mutual
\n    Fund Scheme?\n<\/p>\n
    2       The Assessment Year involved herein is A.Y. 2003-2004.\n<\/p>\n
    3       The Assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of <\/p>\n
    Asset Management of Mutual Funds. In the Assessment Year in question, the <\/p>\n
    Assessing   Officer   on   noticing   that   the   Assessee   has   claimed   investment <\/p>\n
    advisory fees, less than the ceiling prescribed under Regulation 52 of the <\/p>\n
    Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 <\/p>\n
    added the differential amount to the income of the Assessee.\n<\/p>\n
    4       The CIT (A) as also the ITAT have held that the SEBI Regulation 52 <\/p>\n
    provides for the maximum limit towards the fees that could be charged by <\/p>\n
    an   Asset   Management   Company   from   the   Mutual   Funds.   Due   to   the <\/p>\n
    business exigencies if the Assessee an Asset Management Company collects <\/p>\n
    lesser   amount   of   fees   than   the   ceiling   prescribed,   it   is   not   open   to   the <\/p>\n
    Assessing Officer to make additions on notional basis merely because the <\/p>\n
    amount of fees actually claimed is less than the maximum ceiling prescribed <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:43:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    4                         43 ITXA 1043-10.doc<\/p>\n
    under   the   SEBI   Regulation.     It   is   not   the   case   of   the   Revenue   that   the <\/p>\n
    Assessee has recovered investment advisory fees more than what is said to <\/p>\n
    have   been   claimed   by   the   Assessee.     Therefore,   the   fact   that   the   SEBI <\/p>\n
    Regulation provides for the maximum limit on the investment advisory fees <\/p>\n
    that   could   be   claimed,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   Asset   Management <\/p>\n
    Companies are liable to be assessed at the maximum limit prescribed under <\/p>\n
    the SEBI Regulations, irrespective of the amount actually recovered by the <\/p>\n
    Asset Management Companies. In these circumstances, the decision of the <\/p>\n
    ITAT in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on notional <\/p>\n
    basis namely, the difference between the amount claimed and recovered by <\/p>\n
    the   Assessee   and   the   maximum   ceiling   prescribed   under   the   SEBI <\/p>\n
    Regulation cannot be faulted. Thus, the first question is answered in the <\/p>\n
    affirmative, that is in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    5      The second question relates to the recovery of the marketing expenses <\/p>\n
    incurred by the Assessee on behalf of the Mutual Funds. In the present case, <\/p>\n
    the Assessee had recovered part of the marketing expenses from the Mutual <\/p>\n
    Funds   and   the   balance   of   the   marketing   expenses   were   borne   by   the <\/p>\n
    Assessee   itself.   The   Assessing   Officer   was   of   the   opinion   that   when <\/p>\n
    Regulation 52 (6) of the SEBI Regulation empowers the Assessee to recover <\/p>\n
    the marketing expenses up to the ceiling prescribed therein, the Assessee <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:43:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   5                         43 ITXA 1043-10.doc<\/p>\n
    was   not   justified   in   charging   part   of   the   marketing   expenses   to   its   own <\/p>\n
    account,   thereby   reducing   its   taxable   income.   Accordingly,   the   Assessing <\/p>\n
    Officer added the differential amount to the income of the Assessee. The <\/p>\n
    CIT (A) as also the ITAT have deleted the addition <\/p>\n
    6      In the present case, it is not in dispute that though the Assessee was <\/p>\n
    entitled   to   recover   entire   marketing   expenses   incurred   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
    Mutual Funds, the Assessee has in fact claimed part of the expenses from <\/p>\n
    the   Mutual   Funds   and   absorbed   the   balance   expenditure   as   a   matter   of <\/p>\n
    commercial prudence. The Assessing Officer has not disbelieved the case of <\/p>\n
    the Assessee that only a part of the expenses incurred has been recovered <\/p>\n
    from   the   Mutual   Funds   on   account   of   commercial   prudence.   In   these <\/p>\n
    circumstances,  the   fact  that   the  Assessee   could  have   collected   the   entire <\/p>\n
    amount of expenses from the Mutual Fund as per Regulation 52(6) of the <\/p>\n
    SEBI Regulation cannot be a ground to make addition in the hands of the <\/p>\n
    Assessee, especially  when  the  bonafide  decision   of   the  Assessee  to  claim <\/p>\n
    part   of   the   expenses   from   the   Mutual   Funds   is   not   doubted   and   the <\/p>\n
    expenditure   claimed   to   have   been   incurred   by   the   Assessee   is   also   not <\/p>\n
    doubted.\n<\/p>\n
    7      In the result, in our opinion, the ITAT was justified in holding that <\/p>\n
    Regulation 52 (6) of the SEBI Regulation merely provides for a ceiling on <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:43:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6                         43 ITXA 1043-10.doc<\/p>\n
    expenses that could be charged to the Mutual Funds and where an Asset <\/p>\n
    Management   Company   does   not   charge   the   Mutual   Funds   part   of   the <\/p>\n
    expenses actually incurred due to bonafide commercial decision, then, no <\/p>\n
    part of the expenditure can be disallowed and consequently the addition <\/p>\n
    made on account of disallowance cannot be sustained. In the  result, the <\/p>\n
    second   question   is   answered   in   the   affirmative,   that   is,   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
    Assessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    8<\/span><\/p>\n
           Similarly,   the   third   and   fourth   questions   relate   to   deleting   the <\/p>\n
    disallowances   made  by  the   Assessing   Officer. Regulation   52  (7)  provides <\/p>\n
    that   any   recurring   expenditure   in   excess   of   the   limit   specified   in   sub-\n<\/p>\n
    regulation (6) may be borne by the Asset Management Company or by the <\/p>\n
    Trustee or by the Sponsors. As the Assessee claimed deduction of the entire <\/p>\n
    expenditure incurred on behalf of the mutual funds instead of recovering <\/p>\n
    2\/3rd  of the expenditure from the Trustee\/Sponsors, the Assessing Officer <\/p>\n
    disallowed 2\/3rd of the expenses and added the same to the income of the <\/p>\n
    Assessee. Similarly, initial issue expenses incurred on behalf of the Mutual <\/p>\n
    Funds   were   disallowed   on   the   ground   that   the   Assessee   was   entitled   to <\/p>\n
    recover the same from the Mutual Funds. The ITAT deleted additions on the <\/p>\n
    ground that merely because, the SEBI Regulation empowers the Assessee to <\/p>\n
    recover the above expenditure, disallowance of the expenditure cannot be <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:43:29 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7                         43 ITXA 1043-10.doc<\/p>\n
    made if the Assessee decides not to recover part of said expenditure from <\/p>\n
    the   Mutual   Funds\/Trustees\/Sponsors.   The   restrictions   under   the   SEBI <\/p>\n
    Regulations are imposed with a view to ensure that the Mutual Funds are <\/p>\n
    not overcharged and the said Regulations are not intended to mandatorily <\/p>\n
    saddle the Mutual Funds with the liability set out in the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
    9        In the present case, genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the <\/p>\n
    Assessee on behalf of the Mutual Funds is not in dispute. If the assessee, an <\/p>\n
    Asset   Management   Company,   due   to   business   exigencies   claims   and <\/p>\n
    recovers   from   the   Mutual   Funds   lesser   amount   than   the   amount   of <\/p>\n
    expenditure actually incurred during the course of its business, then, unless <\/p>\n
    it is established that there were no business exigencies or the claim was not <\/p>\n
    genuine, the expenditure incurred cannot be disallowed and added to the <\/p>\n
    income   of   the   Assessee.   Accordingly,   the   third   and   fourth   questions   are <\/p>\n
    answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the Assessee and against the <\/p>\n
    Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
    10       The Appeal  is  disposed of  in  the  above  terms  with no  order  as  to <\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                 (K.K. TATED, J.) <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:43:29 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Commissioner Of Income … vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management … on 12 September, 2011 Bench: J.P. Devadhar, K. K. Tated 1 43 ITXA 1043-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-III .. Appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income ... vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management ... on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income ... vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management ... on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-03T07:56:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income … vs M\\\/S. Templeton Asset Management … on 12 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-03T07:56:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1476,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income ... vs M\\\/S. Templeton Asset Management ... on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-03T07:56:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income … vs M\\\/S. Templeton Asset Management … on 12 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income ... vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management ... on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income ... vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management ... on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-03T07:56:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income … vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management … on 12 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-03T07:56:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011"},"wordCount":1476,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011","name":"The Commissioner Of Income ... vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management ... on 12 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-03T07:56:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-vs-ms-templeton-asset-management-on-12-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income … vs M\/S. Templeton Asset Management … on 12 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211763","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}