Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1769 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - selection / rejection of certain comparables while determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction with Associated Enterprise (AE) - HELD THAT:- CYBER MEDIA RESEARCH LTD. (Formerly, IDC (INDIA) LTD.) company is a comparable to an investment advisory service provider. LADDER–UP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD. is registered as Category–1 Merchant Banking Company with SEBI and is engaged in merchant banking services w.e.f. July 2010. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect, the Co–ordinate Bench in the decisions cited by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee has held that this company cannot be a comparable to a company engaged in the activity of investment advisory services. Since, the aforesaid decisions are for the very same assessment year and no distinguishing fact in the present appeal was brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative, respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal, we hold that this company cannot be treated as comparable to the assessee. MOTILAL OSWAL PRIVATE EQUITY ADVISORS PVT. LTD. Company has four business verticals, however, the segmental details are not available in the annual report. Further, in case of Temasek Holding Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (8) TMI 1490 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal, while considering the comparability of the aforesaid company to an investment advisory services provider held that this company cannot be a comparable due to differences in functional profile. MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. is engaged in the business of investment banking, merchant banking, merger and acquisition, private equity syndication, etc., which are no way similar to the assessee’s activities of non–binding investment advisory services. In a number of decisions including decisions relating to the impugned assessment year, as referred to above, the Tribunal has held that this company cannot be a comparable to an investment advisory service provider. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that this company cannot be a comparable to the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of the DRP on this issue. Allowance of assessee’s claim of payment of bonus to share holder directors - HELD THAT:- Tribunal while deciding the issue in [2015 (4) TMI 795 - ITAT MUMBAI] allowed assessee’s claim towards payment of bonus to Directors following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shahzada Nand & Sons [1977 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] . Notably, the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the Department in an appeal filed before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble High Court while deciding Revenue’s appeal in [2018 (8) TMI 384 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] upholding the decision of the Tribunal on the issue. No dissimilarity in facts having been brought to our notice by the learned Departmental Representative for the impugned assessment year, respectfully following the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case as referred to above, we uphold the order of the DRP on this issue. Ground raised is dismissed.
|