2014 (7) TMI 1105 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of arm's length price - exclusion of the 3 comparables - Held that - The DRP while excluding these three comparables have clearly given a finding to the effect that related party transactions were more than 25% in respect of all transactions entered into with these three comparables namely KLC Capital Services Limited, Quantum Advisors Private Limited and AR Venture Fund Management Limited. In case of KLC Capital Services Limited, the related party transaction (RPT) was found to be 41.45% and thereby earning abnormally high operating profit of 85.22%. Quantum Advisors Private Limited was found to have related party transaction to the extent of 65.39% of total turnover and in case of AR Venture Fund Management Limited, the related party transactions were found to be 53.76% of total turnover. In respect of choosing the comparables having high related party transactions, the issue has been dealt by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Willis Processing Services (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reported in 2013 (3) TMI 415 - ITAT MUMBAI , wherein it was observed that comparables having transactions with related party above 25% should be ignored. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and also keeping in view the findings recorded by the DRP with regard to percentage of related party transactions, which has not been controverted by the learned DR by bringing any positive material on record, we do not find any reason to interfere in the direction issued by the DRP. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed by Revenue against the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y.2009-10.
- Exclusion of certain comparables by the DRP based on related party transactions exceeding 25%.
- Dispute over the rejection of benchmarking analysis and selection of comparables by the TPO.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the ITAT Mumbai involved a dispute between the Revenue and the assessee regarding the order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue challenged the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) to exclude three comparables, namely KLPG Capital Services Ltd., Quantum Advisors Pvt. Ltd., and A.R.Venture Fund Management Ltd., out of the nine selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).

2. The assessee, in cross objection, contended that the rejection of their benchmarking analysis by the TPO and subsequent confirmation by the DRP was erroneous. The assessee argued that the rejection was based on the use of single-year data instead of multiple-year data, improper selection of comparables, and failure to make appropriate adjustments as permitted by Rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Additionally, the assessee raised concerns about the incorrect insertion of total income in the rectification order.

3. The ITAT considered the facts where the assessee provided non-binding investment advisory services to its client and benchmarked the transactions using the professional net margin method with a net cost plus margin as the profit level indicator. The TPO rejected the comparables proposed by the assessee, leading to a new set of comparables being selected. The DRP then directed the exclusion of three comparables due to related party transactions exceeding 25% in each case.

4. The ITAT upheld the DRP's decision to exclude the three comparables based on the high related party transactions, as observed in cases such as KLG Capital Services Limited, Quantum Advisors Private Limited, and A.R. Venture Fund Management Limited. The ITAT cited a previous decision regarding the exclusion of comparables with related party transactions above 25%. As a result, the ITAT dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection raised by the assessee, as it had become infructuous.

5. In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai upheld the DRP's direction to exclude certain comparables due to high related party transactions, following established principles and previous tribunal decisions. The ITAT's decision resulted in the dismissal of both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection.