9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces while the Respondent-Assessee was providing financial services. Thus, as the activities of Spanco and Respondent-Assessee are functionally different, they are not comparable Tribunal in the impugned order adopted the same comparable it had adopted in the case of M/s. Carlyle India (2013 (4) TMI 486 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) for the purpose of arriving at the ALP in respect of its International Transaction. No substantial question of law arises in this case. - Income Tax Appeal No. 2222 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 4-4-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And A. K. Menon, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kotangale i/b. Ms. Padma Divakar For the Respondent : Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayur Agarwal i/b. Mint Confreres ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is an Indian Associate of Goldman Sachs, who are in the business of investment banking, securities and investment management and providing wide range of services to diversified customers including corporation, financial institutions, governments and high net worth individuals. During the relevant Assessment Year, the Respondent-Assessee carried on the business of Investment advisory services, Broking Services, Business Support Services. (b) As the Respondent-Assessee was engaged in the International Transaction, the Assessing Officer referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). This to determine Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of its International Transaction with Associated Enterprises (AE). Consequent to the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt loss making unit and, thus, cannot be used as a comparable for the purpose of determining the ALP. The Tribunal by the impugned order held on a finding of fact that for the Assessment Year 200506 Capital Trust Ltd. has made a profit although it made a loss for the subsequent two years namely Assessment Year 200607 and 2007-08. However, the impugned order of the Tribunal inter alia relies upon its order in the case of Brigade Global v/s. ITO, ITA No. 1494/Hyd/2010 rendered by the coordinate Bench at Hyderabad wherein it is held that only persistently loss making unit cannot be said as comparable. In this case, the impugned order holds on facts that Capital Trust Ltd. it is not a persistent loss making unit. Therefore, Capital Trust Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviding services of Broking Services, Business Support Services and Investment advisory services to its customers. The TPO had adopted a list of comparable companies which were primarily engaged in providing services as merchant banker as comparable to determine the ALP in respect of the Investment Advisory Services rendered by it to its AEs . The companies selected by the TPO were identical to one selected in Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd., The aforesaid decision of the TPO in Carlyle (I) Advisors (P) Ltd. (supra) was a subject matter of consideration by the Tribunal in ITA No. 7901/Mum/2011. The Tribunal after examining the business of each of the individual comparable concluded that they were different from that of the services provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
