TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corrected margins, in accordance with law. The ground No.1 of the cross objections is allowed for statistical purposes. Selection of Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd as comparable - HELD THAT:- The assessee company is justified in asserting that Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd. deserves to be excluded from the final set of comparables on account of peculiar economic circumstances during the year under consideration - ITA NO.5564/MUM/2015, ITA NO.5563/MUM/2015, C.O.NO.172/MUM/2016 (Arising out of ITA No.5564/Mum/2016,A.Y.2010-11) - - - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member And Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member For the Assessee : S/ Shri Vijay Mehta Govind Javeri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) has amended Para 3 of Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11-07-2018 thereby enhancing monetary limit of tax effect from ₹ 20 Lakhs to ₹ 50 Lakhs for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal. Thus, without going into merits of the issue raised in the appeals, the present appeals by the Revenue are dismissed on account of low tax effect. 6. Before parting, we clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeal(s), with the requisite material to show that the appeal(s) is/are protected by the exceptions prescribed in Para 10 of the Circular dated 11- 07-2018 and its amendment dated 20/08/2018. 7. In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides on the issue of condonation of delay. After examination of facts, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of cross objections was not deliberate. The Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao reported as 2002(3) SCC 195 has held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party. Taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, explanation furnished should not be rejected, where arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case. Taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the assessee res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. In respect of ground No.2, the ld.Representative of assessee submitted that the authorities below have erred in selecting Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd. as one of the comparables. The ld.Authorized Representative pointed that the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Advisory Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, reported as 157 ITD 600(Mum) has held that Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd is not a good comparable for investment advisory services. The said company is engaged in merchant banking, investments and offer portfolio management services. 15. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the cross objections of the assessee. The ld. Depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able. The assessee is engaged in the business of investment advisory services. The contention of the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee is that Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd is engaged in the business of merchant banking activities and hence, is not a good comparable. To support his contentions reliance is placed on the decision of Carlyle India Advisory Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (Supra). We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Advisory Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) for assessment year 2010-11 had an occasion to consider inclusion/exclusion of Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd. in the final set of comparables in respect of a company engaged in investment advisory related support services. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
