1 43 ITXA 3348-10 3185.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3348 OF 2010 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3185 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III .. Appellant Vs. M/s. Franklin Templeton Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. Mr. F.V.Irani a/w Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1 Although five questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this Appeal, Counsel for the parties states that first four questions were also raised by the Revenue in the Assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal No.1043 of 2010 and the said Appeal has been dismissed by us today. Hence, for the reasons stated in our order in Income Tax Appeal No.1043 of 2010 (The Commissioner of Income Tax – Central – III vs. M/s. Templeton Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd.) the first four questions cannot be entertained. 2 43 ITXA 3348-10 3185.doc 2 The 5th question relates to the additions made by the Assessing Officer in relation to Miscellaneous expenses. Regulation 52(6) under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations 1996 provides for ceiling on the expenses that can be claimed by a Asset Management Company from the Mutual Funds. In the present case, the miscellaneous expenses claimed by the Assessee is less than the ceiling prescribed under the SEBI Regulations. The difference between the ceiling prescribed under the Regulation and the amount actually claimed were sought to be added on notional basis as income of the Assessee by the Assessing Officer. 3 The ITAT has deleted the additions on the ground that merely because the ceiling on expenses prescribed under the SEBI Regulations is higher than the amount claimed by the Assessee, the differential amount cannot be brought to tax on notional basis, especially when there is no dispute that the Assessee has not received any amount in excess of the amount claimed by the Assessee. 4 In our opinion, the decision of the ITAT in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted. 3 43 ITXA 3348-10 3185.doc 5 In the result, we see no merit in these Appeals, hence, the present Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)