TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal decision excludes some comparables, emphasizes empirical evidence & consistent filters.</h1> <h3>M/s. ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) Private Ltd. Versus. ACIT, Circle 6 (1), New Delhi.</h3> M/s. ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) Private Ltd. Versus. ACIT, Circle 6 (1), New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of certain filters while selecting comparables.2. Risk adjustment in the computation of margins.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Certain Filters While Selecting Comparables:The primary issue raised by the assessee pertains to the selection of comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The assessee, engaged in providing investment advisory services to its overseas associated enterprises (AE), used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) to benchmark its transactions. The TPO, however, rejected the assessee's comparables and selected fresh ones, leading to an upward adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (ALP).The assessee contested the inclusion of three specific comparables: Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd., IM+ Capital (formerly Brescon Corporate Advisors), and Keynote Corporate Services Ltd.Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd.:The assessee argued that this company is functionally different due to its engagement in merchant banking and other activities, and also fails the Related Party Transaction (RPT) filter. The Tribunal, referencing a previous decision in the assessee's case, upheld the inclusion of Motilal Oswal, stating it is functionally similar and passes the RPT filter based on the sales turnover ratio.IM+ Capital Ltd.:The assessee claimed this company has a different functional profile, being involved in debt syndication and financial restructuring. The Tribunal, noting consistent rejection of this company as a comparable in previous years, directed its exclusion from the list of comparables.Keynote Corporate Services Ltd.:The assessee highlighted the company's involvement in merchant banking and the volatility of its operating margin. The Tribunal, following precedent from previous years, directed the exclusion of Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. due to functional dissimilarity and volatile profit margins.2. Risk Adjustment:The assessee sought risk adjustment, arguing it operates in a risk-free environment with guaranteed mark-ups, unlike the comparables which have diversified functions and higher risk exposure. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for risk adjustment but emphasized the burden on the assessee to provide empirical evidence regarding the risk profiles of the comparables.The Tribunal restored this issue to the Assessing Officer, instructing a thorough examination of the risk profiles and ensuring reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present its case.Conclusion:The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the exclusion of IM+ Capital Ltd. and Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. from the list of comparables. It upheld the inclusion of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. and remanded the issue of risk adjustment to the Assessing Officer for further examination. The decision underscores the importance of empirical evidence in claims for risk adjustment and the need for consistent application of filters in selecting comparables.
TaxTMI 