9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espectively. Both the impugned orders are of even date i.e. 16/09/2015. 2. Shri Vijay Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the appeals filed by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect in the light of the recent CBDT Circular No. No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019. 3. Ms. Nillu Jaggi representing the Department fairly admitted that the tax effect involved in both the appeals is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- each. 4. Both sides heard. A perusal of the grounds of appeal in ITA No.5564/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 shows that the Revenue is in appeal against the relief of Rs. 57,03,352/- allowed by the CIT(A) in transfer pricing adjustment. Similarly, in ITA NO. 5563/Mum/2015 for asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red as the assessee was under bonafide belief that it has received complete relief from the CIT(A). It was only when the assessee got in touch with present Representative of the assessee, it was pointed that wrong comparables and incorrect margins were taken by the CIT(A) while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee. The delay in filing the cross objections is not deliberate or intentional. To support his contention the ld.Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) DBS Bank Ltd. vs. DDIT, CO No.189/Mum/2013 A.Y. 1995-96 decided on 15/04/2016. (ii) Sundaram Multipap Ltd. vs. DCIT,C.O No.272/Mum/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 decided on 20/04/2018. 10. The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently opposed cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Future Capital Holdings Ltd. 2) Without prejudice to the above the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the OP/TC of Future Capital Holdings Ltd - Segment Investment Advisory is 15.21% and not 31.68%. II. CONFIRMATION OF COMPARABLE TAKEN BY TPO - KSHITIJ INVESTMENT ADVISORY CO. LTD 1) The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the comparable taken by TPO in the case of Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd." 13. In respect of ground No.1, the ld.Representative of assessee submitted that while calculating operating margins, the authorities below have erred in applying OP margin on Future Capital Holding Ltd. - Investment Advisory Segment as 31.68% instead of 15.21%. The ld.Representative of the assessee submitted that this issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g as comparable, the TPO has wrongly applied OP margin as 37.68% as against actual OP margin of 15.21%. The assessee has also filed calculation giving details of computation of OP margin in the case of Future Capital Investment segment. We are of considered view that there appears to be a clerical error in calculation of OP margins. This issue is restored to the file of Assessing Officer/TPO for recomputation of OP margin in respect of Future Capital/investment segment. The TPO/Assessing Officer, after recomputing O.P margin shall apply corrected margins, in accordance with law. The ground No.1 of the cross objections is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. The Ground No.2 of the cross objections is against selection of Kshitij Investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
