Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1196 - AT - Income TaxTP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Inclusion of cyber media research Ltd (formerly IDC (India) Ltd. with respect to the related party transaction filter, CIT- A that it does not cross 25% of the revenue of the comparable company. To establish the functional comparability, we have also compared the employee cost of assessee and this comparable and we found that the total employee cost of the assessee out of the operating cost was 34.9% whereas in case of the comparable company it is 34.5%. However, in the original except reject matrix of the assessee this company appeared as a comparable. Inadvertently it was excluded. When the assessee pointed out the same before the TPO asking for its inclusion, the learned TPO held it to be functionally not comparable stating that the annual account of the assessee company are not reliable because of incorrect disclosure of related party transactions. Before us it was not shown that how the disclosure in the annual accounts of that company could be said to be erroneous without making any enquiry under section 133 (6) of the act. As no new facts, additional evidences were submitted by the assessee for its inclusion before the learned CIT- A, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in directing the learned TPO to include the above comparable. Accordingly ground number 1 of the appeal of learned AO is dismissed. CIT-A held that has excluded the IDFC investment advisors Ltd on the basis that it is engaged in the business of providing portfolio management services as a registered portfolio manager with the securities and board of India which is having 90% of its revenue coming from that stream and only 10% revenue stream is from advisory services. CIT- A has also directed for exclusion of Ledger up corporate advisory private limited, which is found to be engaged primarily in the business of providing investment banking services like that syndication, private equity deals and other corporate advisory mandates. It is also registered with the securities and exchange board of India and therefore the CIT - A held that it is engaged in merchant banking activities and therefore not comparable to the assessee. Exclusion of Motilal Oswal investment advisors private limited, it was held that it is engaged in the business of providing investment banking, merchant banking services based on the extracts of the annual reports. It was also found that it is an investment banking company engaged in providing comprehensive investment banking solution. All these findings of the CIT- A remain unchallenged by the learned departmental representative before us. We find that there is a reasonable basis for the learned CIT-A to hold so that all these entities are selected as comparable by the learned transfer pricing officer are having different functions. Disallowance on account of error trade loss - Speculative Loss or not - CIT- A deleted the disallowance following the decision of HSBC securities and capital markets India private limited [2015 (5) TMI 122 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - We also found that assessee does not have any share trading income and does not hold any stock in trade of equity except the shares of Bombay stock exchange. It is not also in dispute that losses have arising on account of error trades only. Therefore, provisions of section 73 of the income tax act with respect to the speculation loss does not apply in case of the assessee. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in deleting the above disallowance. Ground of the appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- AO has categorically stated that there is a composite use of funds and there is a common pool of human and financial resources which are being utilized by the assessee for earning income in various forms and therefore the claim of the assessee that it did not incur any expenditure towards earning of exempt income is not correct. We find that the satisfaction is recorded by the learned assessing officer. We also find that the law does not require a specific manner in which such satisfaction is to be recorded. We do not find any relevance of dominant purpose of holding investments while making disallowance u/s 14 A of the act. Thus, the claim of the assessee that the shares were acquired on demutualization of Bombay stock exchange membership card where assessee is a stockbroker does not help the case of assessee. In this case the total dividend income is received and according to rule 8D, the learned that AO has disallowed. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities in confirming the above disallowance. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Ad hoc disallowance of 10% of entertainment and conference expenses, repair & maintenance expenses and books and periodical expenses - HELD THAT:- If the assessing officer is not satisfied by any amount of expenditure, the expenditure to that extent should have been disallowed irrespective of its percentage. Merely applying an ad hoc percentage to the total expenditure for holding that such expenditure are not bifurcated into business and non business expenditure is not correct. It is not the case of the revenue that any bogus expenditure has been debited in the books of accounts. Merely because certain vouchers are held to be prepared by self showing cash expenditure, does not result into any illegality as there are certain types of expenditure which are prepared on self made vouchers and reimbursed or paid in cash, i.e. Petty cash expenditure, conveyance etc. As such, the assessee has submitted all the Ledgers of such expenditure, which had proper narration of the nature, and the amount spent along with the name of the person who spent it. AO after obtaining the explanation of the assessee did not further point out to the assessee about specific instances of such expenditure with respect to disallowance. As the disallowance is ad hoc without pointing out any instances of nature of expenditure which are not supported by voucher, we reverse the orders of the lower authorities and direct the learned assessing officer to delete the disallowance of 10% of such expenditure confirmed by the learned CIT – A - Accordingly ground number 4 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. TPA - Kshitij investment advisory Co Ltd is required to be excluded from the comparability analysis - should be excluded from comparability analysis. In CIT versus Tata Power solar systems limited [2016 (12) TMI 1600 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein held that party is not barred in law from withdrawing from its list of comparables, if the same is found to have been included on account of mistake as on facts, it is not comparable, was upheld. In that case, the issue of exclusion of a comparable, which was included by the assessee, was argued before the TPO, it is not permitted by the TPO. In this case also, though it was not argued before the TPO, but first time argued before us, for exclusion of Kshitij investment advisory Ltd. We are also duty bound to compute the ALP of international Transaction. Therefore, there is not much difference whether it is challenged before TPO or before us for the first time. We find that comparable company with effect from 1 January 2010 has hived of its investment advisory services to Everstone investment advisors private limited. Therefore, there is an extraordinary event in the comparable company, which has affected the profitability/PLI of the comparable, as investment advisory services business revenue/expenses is not to be included in the financial of comparable company from 1/1/2010. Therefore, we direct the learned AO/ TPO to exclude Kshitij investment advisory Co Ltd from comparability analysis. The additional ground raised by the assessee is thus allowed.
|