TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qualify RPT filter, they cannot be selected as comparables. We deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer/TPO for the limited purpose to verify whether Goldman Sachs and AGM India Pvt. Ltd. qualify RPT filter or not. If both these entities fail to qualify the said filter, they should be removed from the list of comparables. The ground No.1 2 of the appeal by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid. Addition of TDS amount deducted but not deposited by the deductor to the Government exchequer - HELD THAT:- Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni [ 2007 (7) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT , BOMBAY] has held that where the assessee has been able to establish that the tax has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee applied Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as most appropriate method to benchmark its international transactions. The assessee selected seven comparables to determining the arm's length price of the international transactions. The TPO accepted TNMM as the most appropriate method however, the TPO excluded certain comparables selected by the assessee and introduced fresh comparables. The arithmetic mean of the final set of comparables selected by the TPO was42.66% as against the average weighted margin of the comparables selected by the assessee at 18.23%. Thus, the TPO made upward adjustment of ₹ 19,05,210/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 10/04/2014 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before CIT(A). The first appellate authority in respect of TP adjustment granted part relief to the assessee in deleting some of the comparables selected by the TPO . However, the CIT(A) erred in accepting Goldman Sachs and AGM India Advisors Pvt. as comparables. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that both these companies are rendering services to their subsidiaries / AEs only. Thus, they fail Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter. Though their inclusion would not materially effect the result of comparable analysis, however, in principle both these companies should be excluded. In respect of addition on account mismatch in Form 26AS, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Future Capital Holdings Ltd.(Segment-Investment advisory) 31.68 3. IDFC Investment Advisors Ltd. 36.62 4. ICRA Online Ltd. 41.77 5. Kshiti Investment Advisory Co.Ltd. 32.33 6. Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 97.87 ARITHMETIC MEAN 42.66 7. The assessee assailed the findings of TPO and the final list of comparables before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) finally selected following four comparables. (1) Goldman Sach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n books of account, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 21,70,725/-. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee has drawn our attention to the mails and TDS summary statement furnished before CIT(A) as Annexure-4 to substantiate that the deductor has confirmed deduction of tax at source on interest payments to the assessee. 9. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni (supra) has held that where the assessee has been able to establish that the tax has been deducted at source, section 205 of the Act bars to recover TDS amount from the assessee (deductee). The relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in this regard is reproduced herein below:- 24. As stated earlier, in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctee assessee shall not be called upon to pay the demand to the extent tax has been deducted from his income. It was further specified that section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee in such cases and the demand on account of tax credit mismatch in such situations cannot be enforced coercively. 2. However, instances have come to the notice of the Board that these directions are not being strictly followed by the field officers. 3. In view of the above, the Board hereby reiterates the instructions contained in its letter dated 01.06.2015 and directs the assessing officers not to enforce demands created on account of mismatch of credit due to non-payment of TDS amount to the credit of the Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
