9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Transfer Pricing Officer and / or by the Dispute Resolution Panel leaving out certain comparables or adding certain comparables for determining the Arm s Length Price in the hands of the assessee. Unless perversity in the finding(s) of the Tribunal is established, an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act should not be entertained as no substantial question of law can be said to arise therefrom. Also in M/s. Eight Roads Investment Pvt. Ltd. [ 2019 (2) TMI 1806 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] declined to entertain an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Act raising similar questions of exclusion and inclusion of comparables. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 11-3-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms Mohini Chougule for Appellant. Mr. Madhur Agarwal with Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar i/b. M/s. Mint and Confreres for Respondent. P.C.: Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue for the appellant and Mr. Madhur Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee. 2. By filing this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said company was engaged in M A advisory services, but this does not preclude it from being taken as a comparable for investment advisory cases, while excluding Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. on the same basis? II(b). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable for investment advisory services, without considering the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lloyd TSB Global Services P Limited for assessment year 2008-09 (ITA No.453 of 2014), in which the said comparable has been held to be a business support service comparable? III. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of IDC (India) Ltd. as a comparable, without considering the submission of Revenue recorded in para 4.1 of the impugned order that the said comparable earns business convention income apart from market research and management consultancy, but has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfer Pricing Officer passed order dated 27.01.2015 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee had entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprise to provide investment advisory services. It may be mentioned that assessee is a subsidiary of Apollo Mauritius which is a company incorporated in Mauritius. The role of the assessee is to provide non-binding investment advisory services to Apollo Mauritius, its Associated Enterprise. Assessee selected Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method for determining the Arm s Length Price and submitted a set of seven companies that were considered to be broadly comparable to the functional profile of the assessee. This included ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. (briefly ICRA hereinafter) and IDC India Ltd. (briefly IDC hereinafter). While the assessee was asked to explain as to how these companies were functionally similar, it was also provided with a list of four companies including Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (briefly Motilal Oswal hereinafter) and was asked to show cause as to why those companies should not be considered as comparables. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer vide the final order of assessment dated 30.12.2015. 12. Against the aforesaid order, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal which was registered as Income Tax Appeal No.537/Mumbai/2016. The Assessing Officer also filed cross appeal being Income Tax (TP) No.199/Mumbai/2016 . Both the appeals were heard together by the Tribunal and disposed off by the common order dated 04.01.2017. 13. Tribunal first took up the appeal of the Assessing Officer. One of the grounds of challenge in the appeal was exclusion of Motilal Oswal from the list of comparables by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Tribunal referred to its decision for earlier year wherein it was held that Motilal Oswal could not be compared with an assessee who is engaged in providing investment advisory services. Tribunal extensively referred to its earlier decision and came to the definite conclusion that the job profile of Motilal Oswal was different as compared to the activities undertaken by the assessee. While the assessee was rendering investment advisory services specifically related to real estate business, Motilal Oswal was a merchant banker. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that Motilal Oswal was liable to be excluded from the final set of comparables being functionally dissimilar to that of the assessee. 19. Regarding ICRA, Tribunal found that it had consistently held that ICRA was a valid comparable for an investment advisory company. It was held that ICRA was providing consultancy services in diverse areas and its core competence was mainly advisory services in various industries. It was held to be purely an advisory service rendering company. Therefore, Tribunal following the rule of consistency held that ICRA should be included in the final list of valid comparables. 20. In so far IDC is concerned, a categorical finding was rendered by the Tribunal that it was not a product company, rather it was a research company primarily dealing in research and survey services similar to that of the functions and activities performed by the assessee while rendering investment advisory services. 21. Thus from the above it is seen that Tribunal after exhaustive analysis came to the conclusion that Motilal Oswal was not functionally similar to that of the assessee whereas ICRA and IDC were found to be functionally similar to that of the assessee. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
