9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stored 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. Selection of Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd as comparable - HELD THAT:- The assessee company is justified in asserting that Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd. deserves to be excluded from the final set of comparables on account of peculiar economic circumstances during the year under consideration X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax effect from ₹ 20 Lakhs to ₹ 50 Lakhs for filing of appeals by the Department before the Tribunal. Thus, without going into merits of the issue raised in the appeals, the present appeals by the Revenue are dismissed on account of low tax effect. 6. Before parting, we clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeal(s), with the requisite material to show that the appeal(s) is/are protected by the exceptions prescribed in Para 10 of the Circular dated 11- 07-2018 and its amendment dated 20/08/2018. 7. In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed. C.O No. 172/Mum/2016 (AY.2010-11): 8. The assessee has filed cross objections in the appeal filed by the Revenue fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in the case of Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao reported as 2002(3) SCC 195 has held that acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be imputed to the defaulting party. Taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, explanation furnished should not be rejected, where arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case. Taking into consideration the explanation furnished by the assessee resulting delay in filing of cross objections and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 249 days in filing of the cross objections. The cross objections are admitted for hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd is not a good comparable for investment advisory services. The said company is engaged in merchant banking, investments and offer portfolio management services. 15. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the cross objections of the assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that TPO in his order has categorically mentioned that Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd has realigned its business. The business has not resulted in any change of activity and thus, will not impact comparability. M/s. Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd has not earned any income from merchant banking activities during the relevant period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Advisory Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) for assessment year 2010-11 had an occasion to consider inclusion/exclusion of Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd. in the final set of comparables in respect of a company engaged in investment advisory related support services. The TPO had included Kshitij Investment Advisory Co. Ltd as comparable, whereas, the assessee therein had sought exclusion of the said company. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal after examining the activities of comparable company concluded as under:- "22.............Considering the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances, in our view, the assessee company is justified in asserting that Kshitij Investment Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
