9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking an upward adjustment of Rs. 14,78,97,525/- to the income of the appellant earned on account of provision of non-binding investment advisory services to its Associated Enterprises and the learned Assessing Officer ('AO') and DRP has erred in further enhancing the adjustment to Rs. 25,13,431266/-. 3. On the facts and ill the circumstances of the case, the learned AO/ TPO has erred in passing an order not in accordance of Section 92C(3) of the Act and the DRP has erred iii confirming the approach adopted by the AO/ TPO. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned TPO and the learned AO have erred in making and the DRP has erred in confirming the approach adopted by the learned AO/ TPO, who have disregarded the benchmarking analysis conducted, search filters applied and the comparable companies selected by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that such selection was based on the contemporaneous data and the transfer pricing study report prepared and maintained as per section 92D of the Act read with Rule IOD of the Rules. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned TPO and the learned AO have erred in making a tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AOITPO. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the TPO and the DRP that the Appellant has failed to show the difference in the level of risks borne by it as compared to the comparable cases is erroneous, incorrect and contrary to record. Your Appellant prays that the finding be set aside and the risk adjustment prayed for be granted. 12. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned TPO and the learned AO have erred in making and the DRP has erred in confirming the approach of the AO/ TPO to disregard the use of multiple year data, especially for preceding financial years (viz. FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09) as permitted under the provisions of Rule I01)(4) of the Rules as elaborated in the TP study. 13. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in not following and complying with the directions of the DRP. 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the said company cannot be taken as comparable to the assessee. It is noted that this issue has already been dealt with by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order wherein it has been held that the aforesaid company is not comparable to the assessee and, therefore, the same was directed to be excluded with the following observations:- "38 Ld. Authorised Representative objecting to the inclusion of this company as a comparable submitted, it is registered with SEBI as a merchant banker, hence, it cannot be considered as a comparable to the assessee. In this context, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) DCIT v. Warburg Pincus India P. Ltd., ITA no. 3840/Mum/ 2009, A.Y. 2005-06 etc., order dated 29.7.16 ii) Carlyle India Advisory Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2014] 43 taxmann.com 184 (Mum.); iii) Acumen Fund Advisory Services India Pvt Ltd v/s DCIT,[2014] 590 taxmann.com 317 (Mum). iv) BAIN Capital Advisors India P Ltd v/s DCIT, ITA No.11360/Mum/2014 AY 2009-10 v) DCIT v/s Arisaig Partners India P. Ltd IT No.1083/Mum/2014, etc. order dated 25.3.2015 vi) Goldman Sachs India Securities Pvt Ltd v/s DCIT ITA NO 222/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2009-10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have carefully gone through the decision and find that this issue has been threadbare discussed before arriving at the conclusion that the said company is a merchant banker and, therefore, cannot be compared with the company engaged in the business of pure advisors. Thus, respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal, the said company is directed to be excluded from the list of comparables. ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd & IDC India Ltd. 9. It has been brought to our notice that both the above said comparables have been accepted to be included in the list of comparables by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order. It is noted that the Tribunal gave following observations while directing to accept the above companies as comparables:- "41. Objecting to rejection of this company as a comparable, learned Authorised Representative submitted, this company provides consulting corporate and regulatory support analysis and strategies, etc., to clients. Referring to Schedule-12 on notes to accounts forming part of annual report of the company, learned Authorised Representative submitted, the company operates in a single segment i.e., consulting services. He, therefore submitted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
