9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondentassesee for the purpose of rendering advise to its AE and so far as the Risk is concerned, it is found that the consideration is received by it is on cost plus basis similar to M/s. Carlyle India Ltd. i.e. both are risk insulated. However the Tribunal had in this case also adopted only IDC (India) Ltd. as comparable as in its decision in Carlyle India (supra). It must be noted that the figures of IDC (India) Ltd. to arrive at the ALP were of the subject Assessment Year. We note that finding of the comparable to be adopted to determine the ALP as the basis of the activity conducted by the respondent assesee is essentially a finding of fact. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. No substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stment can be made by its AE i.e. GASC LLC. The consideration received by the respondent-assessee for rendering the advisory services to its AE i.e. GASC LLC is cost plus 12.5%. In view of international transaction being involved in rendering services, the Assessing Officer in exercise of his powers under Section 92CA(1) of the Act referred the above transactions to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the services rendered by the respondent-assessee to its AE. The TPO selected comparables on the basis of search with the key words mercantile banking/corresponding banking and investment advisory services . The TPO selected 8 comparables and on application of Transactional Net Margin Method ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4th April, 2012 where it had dealt with an identical/similar nature of services as was being provided by the Assessee and had negatived seven of the Revenue s comparables of Merchant Bankers only to use one comparable in respect of an Investment Advisory viz. IDC Ltd. The Tribunal found that the eight comparables selected by the Revenue in case of M/s. Carlyle India (supra) were identical to that selected in case of the respondent-assessee and only one out of those eight i.e. IDC Ltd. was found comparable in M/s. Carlyle India (supra) and the same was applied as comparable in case of the respondent-assessee for the Assessment Year 200607. In fact the Tribunal in the impugned order compared the nature of services rendered by M/s. Carlyle Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on cost plus basis similar to M/s. Carlyle India Ltd. i.e. both are risk insulated. 8. On the aforesaid analysis, the Tribunal found that it had in the case of M/s. Carlyle India (supra) on detailed examination found only one of the eight comparables selected by the Revenue i.e. IDC (India) Ltd. applicable to arrive at the ALP of its services. The Revenue in the case of the respondent-assessee had selected the same eight comparables as selected in the case of M/s. Carlyle India (supra). However the Tribunal had in this case also adopted only IDC (India) Ltd. as comparable as in its decision in Carlyle India (supra). It must be noted that the figures of IDC (India) Ltd. to arrive at the ALP were of the subject Assessment Year. It may als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
