9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1182 - HC - Income TaxTPA - Comparable selection criteria - including Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. in the final set of comparables - Held that - Tribunal concluded that though Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was declaring a solitary stream of operating income under the head advisory fee , but un-disputedly it was engaged in diversified fields and the financial results for each segment were not seperately available. Considering that it engaged in many diversified fields and not only in the field of rendering nonbinding advisory services, the ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law. We are in full agreement with the findings given by the ITAT. No hesitation in holding that by comparing Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee company (for the purposes of determining the ALP) would be like comparing apples and oranges. This being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ITAT excluding Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. from the final list of comparables which would give rise to any substantial question of law. No substantial question of law .
Issues Involved:
1. Justification for excluding Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable company under Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of relying on the Director's Report for categorizing activities of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. instead of its Profit & Loss account. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification for excluding Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable company under Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this case revolves around whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in excluding Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparable companies for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the investment advisory services provided by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise, NVP-Mauritius. The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to recompute the ALP after excluding Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., as it was engaged in a qualitatively different and diversified business compared to the assessee. The ITAT's decision was based on the fact that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. was involved in multiple business verticals such as Equity Capital Markets, Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity Syndications, and Structured Debt, which were not comparable to the non-binding investment advisory services provided by the assessee. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had included Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable company and determined an adjustment of ?3,46,06,210/- to bring the stated value of the international transaction to its ALP. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) affirmed the TPO's adjustment. However, the ITAT, after considering the business profile and activities of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., concluded that it was not comparable to the assessee's business. The ITAT relied on a similar case involving Carlyle India Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in diversified fields, and its financial results for each segment were not available, making it an unsuitable comparable. 2. Validity of relying on the Director's Report for categorizing activities of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. instead of its Profit & Loss account: The second issue pertains to whether the ITAT was justified in relying on the Director's Report of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. to categorize its activities instead of its Profit & Loss account. The Revenue argued that the operational income from the advisory field shown in the Profit & Loss account of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. was similar to that of the assessee, and hence it should be considered a comparable company. However, the ITAT found that the Director's Report provided a detailed categorization of the activities undertaken by Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., which included Equity Capital Markets, Mergers & Acquisitions, Private Equity Syndications, and Structured Debt. These activities were qualitatively different from the non-binding investment advisory services provided by the assessee. The ITAT's reliance on the Director's Report was deemed appropriate as it provided a comprehensive view of the diversified nature of the business activities of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., which were not comparable to the assessee's services. The ITAT concluded that including Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. in the list of comparables would be like comparing apples and oranges, which justified its exclusion from the final set of comparable companies. Conclusion: The High Court, after reviewing the ITAT's findings and the arguments presented, agreed with the ITAT's decision to exclude Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. from the list of comparables. The Court found that the ITAT's conclusions were based on factual findings that were not perverse or vitiated by any apparent error. The Court held that the issues raised by the Revenue did not constitute substantial questions of law requiring further consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the ITAT's order was upheld.
|
