9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ata. The stated fact, in itself, makes the other contentions raised by assessee, merely academic in nature and therefore, we do not find any necessity to delve into the same. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. AO to compare the margins / PLI of the assessee vis- -vis margins / PLI of the two comparables and re-compute the total income of the assessee - I.T.A. No.621/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2018 - Shri Saktijit Dey, JM And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM Revenue by: Jayant Kumar, Ld. CIT DR Assessee by: Ketan Ved, Ld. AR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, 1. The captioned appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 20112012 assails final assessment order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent advisory services with respect to Real Estate market in India to its Associated Enterprises [AE] namely Sun Apollo Management LLC, Mauritius amounting to ₹ 16.07 Crores and benchmarked the same using Transactional Net Margin Method [TNMM] and selected Operating Profit / Cost [OP/PC] as its Profit Level Indicator [PLI]. In its TP study, the assessee arrived at a mark-up of 16% as against three years weighted average mean of 8.5% of three comparables namely ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd., ICRA online Ltd. IDC (India) Ltd. and therefore, contended that no TP adjustment was required to be made. However, Ld. TPO while rejecting assessee s three comparables, alternatively suggested four comparables, which after considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selected by the assessee were functionally similar to the functions being performed by the assessee and therefore most appropriate one as against the final comparable selected by Ld. TPO which was not functionally similar. Reliance has been placed on certain judicial pronouncements as placed in the paper-book for exclusion / inclusion of the comparables in question. Per Contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] justified the selection of the final comparable and contended that if assessee s comparables were to be accepted then revenue s comparable was also acceptable since they all were functionally similar. Reliance has been placed on the order of this Tribunal rendered in AGM India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT [79 Taxmann.com 86]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this comparable. Therefore, finding identical facts in the present case and respectfully following the judicial precedent, we direct exclusion of this comparable from final analysis. 4.2 Regarding acceptance of assessee s comparable namely ICRA Management Consulting Ltd. IDC Ltd., Ld. AR rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal rendered in AGM India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT [79 Taxmann.com 86] for identical AY wherein this Tribunal has found both these comparable functionally similar to an assessee carrying out investment advisory services. Respectfully following the same, we direct for inclusion of these two comparables. 4.3 So far as the selection of ICRA online Ltd. by the assessee is concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
