9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We first proceed to dispose off the assessee's appeal in ITA no.4203/Mum./ 2012, for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The main issue involved in this appeal, relates to disallowance of expenditure u/s 40 (a) (ia) for sums aggregating to Rs. 3,93,03,905, claimed by the assessee towards reimbursement of cost of salary and other expenses made by the assessee to its holding company at Singapore. 3. Facts in brief, as culled out from the material on record and the arguments advanced by the parties are that the assessee, Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. (for short "THAIPL"), is wholly owned (100%) subsidiary of Temasek Holding Pte. Ltd. (for short "THPL"), which is an Asia investment firm based at Singapore. The assessee renders investment advisory services to THPL, Singapore, which includes identifying and analyzing potential investment particulars in India, evaluating political and economic scenario for the investment purpose in India and monitoring and making recommendation to THPL in respect of specified investment in India, specifically for unlisted companies. All these services are provided by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of THPL, therefore, the salary of these employees was paid by them. The THPL, in turn, recharges the salary to the assessee which is to be reimbursed by the assessee. As the salary was paid to these employees in respect of services rendered by them in India, the overseas company THPL has deducted taxes thereon in accordance with the provisions of section 192 and deposited the same to the Indian Government treasury. Besides this, there were certain other expenses incurred on behalf of the assessee by the THPL, the same were also reimbursed by the assessee. These expenses were in the nature of expenditure incurred by the seconded employees, business promotion, professional fees and information technology, etc. In support of this contention, various documents like - (i) copies of secondment agreement entered between the assessee and the THPL for the deputation of the employees; (ii) representation letter from the assessee that services have been rendered by the deputed / seconded employee to the assessee, only (iii) affidavit from the deputed / sedonded employees stating that they have provided services to the assessee company in India for their Indian Operations, during the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India before payments under the terms of agreement; however, no approval from Govt. of India is accorded to the assessee company. Further, no tax on income chargeable to tax is withheld at the time of making payment by the assessee company. c) The relationship of THPL and assessee company is that of independent contractors and agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of India. Accordingly, amount which is reimbursed is nothing but a contractual payment. d) The advice to be raised by THPL on assessee company is on monthly basis such as monthly remuneration or salary for services provided by Managing Director and other employees in India. The assessee company is beneficiary of such expenditure as it has inherent character of salary. Further, by expending said amount, assessee has earned its business income and accordingly the same is business expenditure of the assessee company. e) By paying amount on information technology, professional fees, business promotion, accommodation, traveling, etc. assessee company gets benefits for its business in India as services by the employees are provided to assessee company in India. It appears that assessee company is making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, copy of Form- 16 and Form-12A issued to the seconded employees was also furnished. This fact has been noted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) at Page-5 / Para-1.12. Point by point rebuttal of Assessing Officer's finding was submitted before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and also the facts emerging from the 'seconded agreement' which were elucidated as under:- Supervision, direction and control of the deputed employees is with the Appellant's Board of Directors (refer para 2.2. of page I of the agreement). THPL does not bear any responsibility or risk for the results produced by the work of the deputed employees (refer para 3 on page 2 of the agreement). The salary cost of the deputed employees is borne by the appellant and the cost of the deputed employees is charged back by THPL to the appellant at actual basis without any markup (refer para 2.1 of page 2 of the agreement). The salary cost of the deputed employees is borne by the appellant and the cost of the deputed employees is charged back by THPL to the appellant at actual basis without any markup (refer pare 2.1 of page 2 of the agreement). The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanchan Ganga Sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Signatory persons of Singapore company are not known and who has signed, as in some of the invoices, same person has signed in other invoices the name and designation of the person are not evident; (vii) None of the tax invoice shows that these details were raised for services rendered by both the seconded employees. Some of the invoices have not been filed; (viii) He also mentioned some invoices of various dates which have not been filed, Other details of date of remittance, details of Form-16 along with BSR code has been elaborated by him. 11. However, from these notes especially which has been elaborated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) from point no.IX to XV as given in Para-4.6 of the appellate order, what inference he wanted to draw has not been made clear. Apparently, it seems that he wanted to demonstrate that monthwise payment has not been made by the assessee as per the tax invoices raised by the Singapore company and the payments have been made on later dates. Another most important fact which has been noted by him is the discrepancy in the figure of debtors as on 31st March 2006, 31st March 2007 and 31st March 2008. From these facts, he has noted certain infe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been done and held that there is no justification or evidence for deferring the payment. On this basis, he held that there is no justification for such quantification of reimbursement of expenses by the assessee company and also that both these employees were working in India and there was no necessity to incur such expenses by the parent company and in any case deferment of reimbursement of expenses cannot be justified. On these basis, he has tried to justify the Assessing Officer's action of invoking the section 40(a)(ia) and confirm the disallowance. He has further placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) Danfoss Industries Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, AAR no.606/2002; and ii) AT&S India Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, AAR no.670/2005. In both the aforesaid decisions, reference has been made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1999] 239 ITR 587 (SC). The AAR ruling in case of Verizon Data Services India Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, AAR no.865/2010, was heavily relied upon him. In his conclusion, he has also justified the Assessing Officer's reliance for following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanchanganga Sea Foods (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the secondment agreement was dated 7th September 2006, and in case of Mr. Manish Kejariwal, it was entered on 1st May 2004. Secondly, before the Commissioner (Appeals), a copy of duly signed agreement was filed which has been noted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) also, along with the Affidavit of these two employees. Thus, it cannot be held that the secondment agreement is sham or not genuine. Regarding the Assessing Officer's allegation that no permission has been obtained from the Government of India for the secondment agreement, he submitted that there is no such provision in the law or elsewhere for getting any approval of the agreement entered into between two parties for transfer of its employees. Insofar as the date of appointment letter and the date of joining are concerned, he submitted that there is no discrepancy and what inference the learned Commissioner (Appeals) wants to draw, has not been made clear and in any case it has no bearing on the issue involved here. Regarding discrepancy in the figures of debtors and current liability in the audited balance sheet as on 31st March 2007 and 31st March 2008, he pointed out that in fact there is no discrepancy at all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case he submitted, that all the payments including reimbursement of expenses between the parent company and the Indian company was subject matter of reference to the TPO who has found that these transactions are at ALP and there could not be any question that these reimbursements of expenses are for any payment for getting any kind of services from Singapore company. Even under the Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii), if the consideration which is the income of the recipient, chargeable under the head "salary", the same will not be termed as "fees for technical services" (FTS). Thus, this cannot be a case of FTS also. In support of his contention and on the facts of the case, he relied upon catena of decisions and also filed synopsis of such decisions along with copy of the judgment. A list of such decisions are as under:- i) Abbey Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 53 SOT (Bngl.) 401; ii) ACIT v/s CMS (I) Operations & Maintenance Co. P. Ltd. (CMS India), 135 ITD 386 (Chennai); iii) ITO v/s CMS (I) Operations & Maintenance Co. P. Ltd. ITA no.1264/Mds./2012; iv) ITO v/s Ariba Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.616/Bngl./2011; v) DIT v/s HCL Infosystem Ltd., 274 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. 18. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, rebutting the arguments of the learned Sr. Counsel, submitted that the entire fulcrum of the case is, whether the payment made to the Singapore company is on account of reimbursement of salary or not. He strongly contended that this is not a case of a salary at all as there is no employer employee relationship between the assessee and the seconded employees. It is a clear cut case for fees for technical services under the domestic law i.e., section 9(1)(vii) and also under the treaty Article-12(4). Without prejudice, if it is not a salary or FTS, then it is a case for a service P.E., hence, the payment made has to taxed in India. Firstly, he submitted that there is no reimbursement of expenses at all but payment on account of fees for technical services. In the present case, there is an agreement between the Singapore company and the assessee company with regard to investment advisory services to the Indian company, for which the payment is being made to the Singapore company. In the absence of any employee employer relationship, the assessee company does not have any liability to pay the salary to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was paid cost plus 15% by the overseas company. The overseas entity deputed the seconded employee to render the service in India and all these service benefits were given by the overseas entity who remained the employee of the original employer. On these facts, the AAR has given the ruling against the assessee after discussing the issue in detail. He also referred to the relevant paragraph of the said decision. Similar reliance was placed on the AAR ruling in case of AT&S India Pvt. Ltd., AAR no.670/2005 and Danfoss Industries Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, AAR no.606/2002, wherein it was held that payments made in pursuance of secondment agreement cannot be said to be reimbursement of expenditure and such a payment has to be made after withholding the tax under section 195. He further submitted that even from the plain reading of Explanation (2) to section 9(1)(vii), managerial and consultancy services are treated as "fee for technical services". These seconded employees by doing advisory and managerial service, for the Indian company which in turn are providing services to Singapore company is nothing but rendering of services. The phrase in Explanation (2) "including the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in the Indian company, it was the expenditure of the Indian company and any payment towards reimbursement of expenses towards overseas company cannot be treated as mere reimbursement of expenses. 22. In the rejoinder, learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. Porus Kaka, submitted that the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the year 2008-09 have accepted that the payment made to these employees are in the nature of salary. The secondment agreement creates the obligation for the payment of salary and the liability to reimburse is under the secondment agreement only. Rebutting the decision of Petroleum India International (supra), he submitted that the Tribunal was examining the issue of the employer-employee relationship under section 40(a)(iii) and whether there is any employee-employer relationship between the assessee and the seconded person. There was no issue of section 195 or FTS. Similarly, the decision Emil Webber's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the income accrues in India and there is no employee-employer relationship, then it is income from other sources. He further analysed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service P.E. Once these two contentions failed, then it is a clear cut case of a salary paid to the employees for which TDS has duly been deducted under section 192 and the same has been deposited with the Government of India treasury and, hence, no disallowance can be made. 24. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire gamut of the arguments placed by both the parties and also the relevant findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Before adjudicating the issue involved, we briefly reiterate the preliminary facts of the case. The assessee which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore company THPL renders investment advisory service to THPL which includes identifying and analyzing potential investments particulars in India evaluating political and economic scenario for the investment in India and also to monitor and make recommendation in respect of specified investment in India. Based on this advise, the THPL makes investment in India. For rendering these services, the THPL, pays a mark-up of 21% besides reimbursement of certain expenses on actual basis. The services are being provided by the Indian company to the Singapore com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreements, date has already been mentioned in the operating part of the agreement. If the Assessing Officer had any doubt about the authenticity of the agreement, he could have very well required the assessee to substantiate the same. This premise of the Assessing Officer for coming to the conclusion that the secondment agreement is a colourable device cannot be upheld. The second reason given by him is that the relationship between the THPL and the assessee company is that of independent contractors and agreement shall be governed in accordance with the laws of India and, accordingly, the amount reimbursed is nothing but a contractual payment. Even if the relationship between the assessee and the THPL are that of independent contractor and reimbursement of salary is some kind of a contractual payment, then also, it does not strengthen the case of the Assessing Officer, because the THPL has paid the salary as per the secondment agreement and that too after withholding the tax as per the provisions of section 192 of Indian Income tax Act and such a payment of salary has been reimbursed as per the secondment agreement only. The basic condition under the law for deducting the tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * secondly, business promotion expenses relates to the amount of Rs. 1,271, which is a credit card expenditure of Mr. Anuj Maheshwari, which again is not liable for deducting TDS; * thirdly, the information technology expenditure represents subscription to factiva for availing data base and equinix charges which are for e-mail system. These are not liable for TDS because they are neither for technical services nor for any professional services; and * lastly; coming to the reimbursement of expenses for professional fees, on a perusal of the details of professional payments, it is seen that following amounts have been paid to the professionals for rendering services to the assessee in India:- (i) Luthra & Luthra Law Firm Rs. 12,32,543 (ii) Estate and Young Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 15,98,831 (iii) Jyoti Sagar Associates Rs. 34,328 Rs. 28,65,702 These payments have been made by the THPL on behalf of the assessee company which has been reimbursed. The very nature of the payment shows that they are for rendering professional services, for which TDS provisions are attracted under the Act. It does not make any difference whether the payment was made by THPL and reimbursed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, makes it very clear which, for the sake of ready reference, is reproduced herein below:- Debtors and current liabilities as per books of account for the F.Y. ended 31.3.2007 Debtors Temasek Holdings P. Ltd. (THPL) Current Liabilities Sundry creditors THPL Other creditors Provision of expenses Other statutory dues Presentation in the financial statements for the financial year ended 31st March 2007 (Net basis) Debtors (Rs. 144,817,685 receivables from THPL less Rs. 62,616,270 payable to THPL) Current Liabilities Sundry creditors (Other creditors) Provision of expenses Other statutory dues Presentation in the financial statements for the financial year ended 31st March 2008 (ON gross basis) Debtors (on gross basis) Current liabilities (on gross basis as per the books of account) 62,616,270 14,64,581 536,255 29,656 1464581 536255 29656 144,817,685 64,646,762 82,201,415 2030492 144,817,685 64,646,762 From the above, it is amply clear that the difference is mainly on account of presentation of financial statement only, as for the year ending 31st March 2007, the assessee has shown the figure on net basis whereas for the year ending 31st March 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TE-OC which was reimbursed by the assessee. One of the main functions of the employees was to liaise between the assessee and the parent company to supervise and provide directions on the manner in which activities of the applicant should be carried out. Here also, the issue was that the reimbursement of salary by the Indian company to the GTE-OC, whether amounts to payment on which TDS was to be deducted under section 195. The GTE-OC had already deducted TDS under section 192. The basic difference in this case with that of the present case of the assessee is that the services rendered by the Indian company was for the purpose of U.S. company for operations in India and through the seconded employees the U.S. company was rendering services in India. Thus, the services were rendered by U.S. company only through the Indian company, whereas, in the present case the Indian company is rendering service for Singapore company on a mark-up and the Singapore company was not rendering any service in India through the Indian company. It was on this background, the AAR held that the services which are rendered by the GTE-OC are liable to be taxed in India. In this case, Singapore company is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier, the Singapore company THPL is not rendering any service to the Indian company i.e., the assessee, rather it is a vice-versa. The two seconded employees are working for Indian company and only for the Indian operation. They are not rendering services on behalf of the Singapore company, therefore, there is no question of rendering of managerial or consultancy services by the Singapore company either directly or through the seconded employees. Hence, provisions of section 9(1)(vii) do not get attracted in this case. Once it is a salary, then it cannot be a case of FTS as it is neither the case of the Assessing Officer nor of the Commissioner (Appeals) that it is in the nature of FTS. Even the "make available clause" as stipulated in Article-12(4) is also not applicable because the Singapore company is neither rendering any services to the Indian company nor they are making available any kind of technical knowledge, experience, skill or proceeds to the Indian company. None of the judgments relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative can be made applicable on the facts of the assessee's case. Also there is no merit in the contention of the learned Departmental Representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bursed by the assessee company as per the advice raised from time to time. Thus, we are unable to sustain the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue of reimbursement of salary, reimbursement of expenditure relating to the seconded employees, expenditure relating to information technology, expenditure and business promotion. Accordingly, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on account of these expenses stands deleted. 33. However, with regard to the professional fees, we find that these expenditures have been incurred for the purpose of Indian company for its operation in India and these payments were made by the Singapore company which has been reimbursed by the Indian company. We have already held that the payment of professional fee does attract with holding of tax under the provisions of the Act and that this issue has not been properly dealt with either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) because both these authorities were dealing mostly with the reimbursement of salary issue, therefore, we set aside the issue of reimbursement of expenditure towards the payment of professional fee and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated the reimbursement of these expenses as "fees for technical services" as per the Article-12 of Indo- Singapore DTAA. 39. Both the parties have made their elaborated submissions in support of various decisions which were common for both the appeal (i.e., for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09). The relevant directions of the DRP on this score are as under:- (i) The associated entity, foreign company, Temasek Holdings is an investment company which is an active shareholder and investor in financial services, telecommunications & media, technology, transportation, industrials, life-sciences, consumer, real estate, energy & resources and all its employees are engaged in such activity. In the instant case, the impugned reimbursements have been made by the assessee to the foreign company in respect of investment advisory services received from the latter's employees, which are purely Fees for Technical Services as per Article 12 of the India- Singapore DTAA. The deputed employees have worked for the assessee (exclusively) and have rendered investment advisory services to THPL. Hence, effectively the payments have been made by the assessee for taxable services received from TH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee company. There is no make available of any kind of technical knowledge, experience, skill or process by the Singapore company to the assessee company through these seconded employees, which is purely a case of payment of salary and reimbursement of salary. All the judgments which have been relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative are not applicable on the peculiar facts of the case and the decision of Verizon Data Services (supra), as relied upon heavily by the learned Departmental Representative is also not applicable as discussed in our earlier part of this order. Thus, in view of our findings given in the assessment year 2007-08, such reimbursement of salary and expenditure incurred by the employees are neither in the nature of "fee for technical services" nor in the nature of any payment for which tax has to be withheld under section 195. Since the tax has already been deducted under section 192 and the same has been deposited to the Government of India treasury, therefore, there is no further requirement for deducting tax under section 195 in the present case. Thus, ground no.1, as raised by the assessee is treated as allowed. 42. The second issue invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. No. Name of Party O.P. Sales % OP / TC % 1. Sundaram Asset Mgt. Co. Ltd. 30.48 43.83 2. ICRA Ltd. 50.52 102.08 3. Deutche Asset Mgt. India Ltd. 9.24 10.18 4. Religare Commodities Ltd. 0.82 0.82 5. BGIL films & Technologies Ltd. 4.73 4.96 6. Brescon Corporate Advisors Ltd. 49.52 98.10 7. Shriyam Broking Intermediary Ltd. 52.88 112.21 8. Twenty First Century Shares & Securities Ltd. 40.06 66.84 Mean 29.78 54.88 46. Accordingly, the upward adjustment was made by the TPO in the following manner:- "3.5 As the assessee's PLI at 21% is way below the average PLI of the comparables at 54.88%, the ALP is determined as under:- The value of the transaction including the reimbursement =Rs. 28,65,46,335 Total cost = Rs. 23,68,15,152 The ALP value of the transaction @ 54.88% = Rs. 36,67,79,307 105% of the transaction value = Rs. 30,08,73,651 95% of the transaction value = Rs. 27,22,19,018 As the ALP lies outside the +/- 5% limit of the value of transaction, therefore, an adjustment of Rs. 8,02,32,972 (difference between Rs. 36,67,79,307 and Rs. 28,65,46,335) is made to the transaction." 47. The DRP has affir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evant financial data are also comparable. Most of these comparables have been accepted by the TPO in the earlier year and also in the subsequent years and, therefore, the same set of comparables cannot be rejected without any proper basis or substantial change in the function and financial data particularly in this year. First of all, the TPO has to have some basis for rejecting the assessee's comparables and then only he can proceed for carrying out fresh search of comparables. In support of this contention, Mr. Kaka, strongly relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Mantor Graphics Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.1114/2008 order dated 4th April 2013 and also the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Carlyle India Advisories Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.7901/Mum./2011, order dated 4th April 2012. He informed before us that this decision has also been affirmed by the Bombay High Court, vide order dated 22nd February 2013. One by one, he discussed all the 6 comparables adopted by the assessee and how they are functionally comparable for the purpose of comparability analysis in this case vis-a-vis the documents placed in the paper book. He submitted that in the case of Carlyl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., he submitted that its main income is from data outsourcing charges i.e., BPO and, therefore, this company has to be excluded from the comparability analysis. Lastly, coming to the Kinetic Trust Ltd., he submitted that this company is registered as NBFC with the RBI and again it is not comparable to the assessee. 50. Thus, without prejudice, even if out of six comparable companies chosen by the assessee company, only two companies are included in the comparability analysis then the average margin comes to 30% as the margin of Access India Advisories India Ltd. is 45.96% and the margin of IDC Ltd. is 13.88%. Going by the assessee's own comparables which can be said to be some functionally comparable, then also the difference comes to 9% and the upward adjustment to the tune of 9% in the assessee's margin should be made. Regarding inclusion of most of the comparables in the subsequent years, he submitted that the annual reports of such companies are not available before us and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be comparable in this assessment year. 51. In the rejoinder, the learned Sr. Counsel, submitted that insofar as the ICRA Management Company is concerned, this comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in of 21% and, hence, it was declared that its margin on the transaction carried out with its parent company was at ALP. The TPO, however, out rightly rejected the assessee's comparables, firstly, on the ground that they are not in investment advisory services and secondly the assessee has not carried out search by using the key phrase "investment advisory services". He was of the opinion that the data should have been accessed from the "capital line data base". No proper reasoning has been given by the TPO as to why data from "Prowess" is not reliable and the "capital line data" should have been taken. On a perusal of his own search for selection of comparables, it is seen that he himself has selected the comparables using the "Prowess data" which is evident from the financials taken by the TPO of his comparables which are appearing from Page-555 to 564 of the paper book submitted before us. He has also not established that by entering the key phrase "investment advisory service", the selection of the functionally similar companies are available from the data. Be that as it may, the selection of eight comparables by the TPO, as have been incorporated in the forgoing paragraphs, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies using its own fund and it is a leading player in distress and special situation advisor and investment company. The over all function as per the profile of the company, cannot be said to have much functional similarity with that of the assessee company. Accordingly, none of the comparables as selected by the TPO can be said to be comparable on FAR analysis and, therefore, none of the comparables can be included for the comparability analysis for bench marking the transactions carried on by the assessee under TNMM. 54. Coming to the assessee's comparables, it is seen that some of them have been found to be proper comparable by the TPO himself in the assessment year 2007-08 and also in the assessment year 2009-10. Without any proper reason or change in the functionality and any financial data, it cannot be held that the same companies are not comparable in the intermediary period of the assessment year 2008-09. The TPO has to bring some material on record to show that why these comparables which were good comparable in the earlier year also in and succeeding year, cannot be compared in this year. Thus, three comparables viz. ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd., ICRA Onlin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Informed Technologies Ltd. This company mostly offers range of data management services to the financial sector in U.S.A. It collects and analyses data on financial fundamentals, corporate governance and capital market. It outsource services i.e., BPO services consisting of financial data base and back office activities for research and advisory reports. Thus, the data outsourcing charges are mostly related to analysing of data based on which advise is given for the investment purpose in India. Moreover, this company has been accepted by the TPO in the year 2009-10 also. Thus, it is a good comparable. v) Kinetic Trust Ltd. This company though registered as a NBFC but is mainly engaged in corporate consultancy and financial services which also include investment advisory service. Moreover, this company has also been accepted to be a good comparable by the TPO in the assessment year 2009-10. Thus, this company has rightly been included by the assessee for comparability analysis. 55. Thus, all the six companies shortlisted by the assessee are quite good comparables looking to the over all functions and also that the same have been found to be so by the Department in the preceding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
