Court upholds Tribunal decisions on income tax matters, including comparables for arm's length pricing.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai Versus J.P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai Versus J.P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues:
1. Disallowance of transaction charges under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Adjustment of interest earned on margin money while computing brokerage income.
3. Exclusion of Keynote Corporate Services Limited as a comparable.
4. Inclusion of Khandwala Securities Limited in the list of comparables for determining ALP of merchant banking services.

Issue 1: Disallowance of transaction charges
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of transaction charges made to the Stock Exchange due to failure to deduct tax at source. The appellant's counsel acknowledged the issue is resolved in favor of the respondent by a Supreme Court decision. The court upheld the decision, concluding no substantial question of law arises.

Issue 2: Adjustment of interest earned on margin money
The TPO factored in additional interest earned from related parties while determining ALP of brokerage services. The Tribunal agreed with the TPO but modified the method of calculation. The court found the Tribunal's approach reasonable and directly linked to interest earned on margin money, dismissing the proposed question.

Issue 3: Exclusion of Keynote Corporate Services Limited
The Tribunal excluded Keynote Corporate Services Limited as a comparable due to an amalgamation affecting its profitability. The appellant argued the issue should be admitted based on a pending case, but the respondent cited court decisions supporting the Tribunal's stance. The court upheld the exclusion, citing the impact of mergers on financial results.

Issue 4: Inclusion of Khandwala Securities Limited
The Tribunal excluded Khandwala Securities Limited from comparables for merchant banking services, noting differences in services provided. The court agreed with the Tribunal's factual findings, emphasizing the need for proper comparables in determining ALP. The objection raised by the Revenue was dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court upheld the Tribunal's decisions on all issues, emphasizing the importance of factual findings and proper comparables in transfer pricing assessments.