TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the said information shares with the assessee before they are made use by the TPO / AO. For this limited purpose, we remand this issue to the file of the AO / TPO to re-examine the functions of the said company in depth after supplying the information so collected by them u/s 133(6) of the Act. - I.T.A. No.1047/M/2015 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2015 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Accountant Member And Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Apellant : Shri Dhanesh Bafna For the Respondent : Shri G.M. Doss, DR ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 12.2.2015 is against the order of the DRP / TPO / AO for the AY 2010-2011. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in upholding the action of the AO/TPO of including Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Private Limited, IDFC Investment Advisors Limited and ICRA online Ltd as comparable companies for determining the arm‟s length price of the international transactions of provison of investment advis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mparable, Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the said company was considered a merchant banker and investment banker and the same is not functionally similar to that of one engaged in non-binding advisory services. These functions are intimately different and functionally dissimilar. In this regard, he relied on various decisions viz., (i) Bain Capital Advisors (India) P. Ltd (ITA No.413/Mum/215 (AY 2010-2011); (ii) NVP Ventures Capital India (P) Ltd (ITA No. 1564/Mum/2015) (AY 2010-2011); (iii) Lehman Brothers Advisors Private Limited (ITA No.7722/Mum/2012) (AY 2008-2009) and (iv) Acumen Fund Advisory Services India Pvt Ltd (ITA No.143/Mum/2014) (AY 2009-2010). 5. We have heard both the parties on the issue of inclusion of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Private Ltd and also perused the cited orders of the Tribunal in this regard. On perusal of the orders of the Tribunal (supra), we find, in the case of Lehman Brothers Advisors Private Limited (supra), one of us (AM) is a party to the said Tribunal‟s order and the Tribunal adjudicated the similar issue vide paras 4 to 6 of the said order of the Tribunal dated 30.9.2015. On perusal of the same, we find the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial markets. The team has a good combination of skill set and knowledge to address the change in the market conditions. The Company expects a larger flow of transactions in the product areas of business and financial restructuring, private equity have-offs shareholder value creation through buy-back/sell-outs and mergers. 5. From the above it is evident that the said company MOIAPL has undertaken 23 assignments successfully in the year under consideration. Major portion of the income is earned by MOIAPL out of cross border activity services and related financial services. The capital market business is one of the source3s of the advisory fees earned by the assessee. Assessee has also earned fees out of assessee‟s capability of the structured finance teams, financial markets, ie both equity and credit market, is another source of income for the assessee. These functions of the assessee were analyzed by the Tribunal during the proceedings in the case of Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd (supra). The details of the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are mentioned in para 12 of the said Tribunal‟s order (supra) and the same is reproduced as under: 12. .... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TPO is directed to exclude the same. Thus, Ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed in favour of the assessee. 6. From the above, it is evident that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd is held as a merchant banker and investment banker , which is functionally not similar to that of function of non-binding advisory services. Therefore, after hearing both the parties in this regard, we are of the opinion that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt Ltd is not a good comparable in this case. Accordingly, AO is directed to exclude the same from the comparables. 7. Regarding IDFC, it is demonstrated before us that the said company is engaged in rendering of services as Portfolio Manager, whose functions are intimately different from that of the functions of non-binding advisory services rendered by the assessee to its AEs. The fact of rejection of the same as a good comparable to a case of similar services as in the case of the assessee, assessee was also demonstrated by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bain Capital Advisors (India) Private Limited (supra). After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the said decision of the Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
