TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to have related party transaction to the extent of 65.39% of total turnover and in case of AR Venture Fund Management Limited, the related party transactions were found to be 53.76% of total turnover. In respect of choosing the comparables having high related party transactions, the issue has been dealt by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Willis Processing Services (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reported in [2013 (3) TMI 415 - ITAT MUMBAI], wherein it was observed that comparables having transactions with related party above 25% should be ignored. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and also keeping in view the findings recorded by the DRP with regard to percentage of related party transactions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of law. 2 The learned AO I TPO erred in proposing and the learned DRP also erred in confirming the rejection of multiple year data used by the Respondent and using single year data to compute the margins of the alleged comparable companies. 3 The learned AO I TPO erred in proposing and the learned DRP also erred in confirming the rejection of a few comparable companies arrived at by the Respondent, which were broadly comparable to non-binding investment advisory services undertaken by the Respondent. 4 The learned AO I TPO erred in proposing and the learned DRP also erred in confirming random selection of companies by the TPO, which the TPO incorrectly claimed to have selected from the benchmarking analysis undertaken b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , LLC pertaining to investment opportunities in India for which it received ₹ 15,09,89,027/-, which is based on Net Cost Plus Mark Up Margin of 20%. The assessee had benchmarked its transactions with the AE using the professional net margin method (TNMM) with net cost plus margin (NCP) as the profit level indicator. In respect of the services so rendered to the AE, the assessee claimed that its OP/TC of 20% was far in excess of the margin of the comparables and the transactions were therefore, considered to be at arms length. However, the TPO rejected the comparables as proposed by the assessee and the TPO proposed a new set of 9 comparables and arrived at mean of OP/TC of 32.32% and made the adjustment of ₹ 1,55,01,540/- as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of total turnover. We have considered the assessee s submission and find that the RPT in this year is more than 25%. Accordingly is directed to be excluded this company as comparable. 6. Against the above order of DRP, the Revenue is in further appeal before us. 7. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders authorities below and found that Revenue is aggrieved for the exclusion of the 3 comparables as discussed above out of total 9 comparables chosen by TPO for arriving at arms length price. The DRP while excluding these three comparables have clearly given a finding to the effect that related party transactions were more than 25% in respect of all transactions entered into with these three comparables n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
