9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment advisory service provider. Therefore, following the consistent view expressed in relation to this company in the judicial precedents referred to above, we direct the Assessing Officer to include this company as a comparable. INTEGRATED CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. company cannot be treated as a comparable to investment advisory service provider. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company. As submitted by the assessee that with the inclusion of the ICRA Management Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., and Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and exclusion of Integrated Technologies Ltd., assessee s margin would be within the 5% range of the raised of the comparable requiring no further adjustment. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to its AE and received an amount of ₹ 4,44,15,472. In the transfer pricing study report, the assessee benchmarked the aforesaid transaction with the AE by adopting Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method. The assessee selected ten companies as comparables with average margin of 16.19% as against its own margin of 20%. Thus, the transaction with AE was claimed to be at arm's length. The Transfer Pricing Officer, however, pointed out various defects and deficiency in the transfer pricing study report as well as selection of comparables. After rejecting the transfer pricing study report as well as most of the comparables selected by the assessee, the Transfer Pricing Officer proceeded to select fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulting fees which is suggestive of the fact that it is providing advisory services, hence, is functionally similar to the assessee. Thus, he submitted, this company should be included as a comparable. In support, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Altico Capital India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.5142/Mum./ 2017, dated 10.01.2020; ii) Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.6981/ Mum./2012, dated 13.01.2017; iii) 3i India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, IT(TP)A no.1292/Mum./2014, dated 30.09.2019; iv) TPG Capital India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2017] 79 taxmann.com 101 (Mum.)(Trib.); v) CIT v/s Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd., ITA no. 359 of 2015, dated 11.07.2017; vi) DCIT v/s Temasek Holding Advisors P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the Tribunal in ITA no.5142/Mum./2017, dated 10th January 2010. Therefore, respectfully following the observations made in the judicial precedents referred to above, we hold that this company being a good comparable has to be retained. ii) INFORMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 9. Objecting to rejection of this company, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, this company provides services relating to analysis of data on financials, fundamentals, corporate governance, director / executive compensation and capital market. In other words, it offers a range of data management services to the financial sector. Therefore, it is comparable to an investment advisory service provider. In support of such contention, he relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted, though, in the transfer pricing study report, the assessee due to lack of proper information/availability of data in the public domain relating to this company had included it as a comparable, however, the Transfer Pricing Officer in the show cause notice issued by him in the course of proceedings has stated that this company not being functionally similar cannot be considered as a comparable. He submitted, in various decisions also this company having been found to be functional dissimilar has been rejected. Thus, he submitted, the company cannot be treated as comparable. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, even in assessee s own case, the Transfer Pricing Officer has rejected this company as a comparable in assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. It is further relevant to observe, in assessee s own case in assessment year 2010 11 and 2011 12, the Transfer Pricing Officer has rejected this company as a comparable. In fact, in case of Warburg Pincus India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has rejected this company from being treated as a comparable to an investment advisory service provider. The other decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative also clearly hold that this company cannot be treated as a comparable to investment advisory service provider. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude this company. 15. In the course of hearing, it was submitted before us by the learned Counsel for the assessee that with the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
