TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2013 relates to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Appellant Revenue has reframed the following question of law for our consideration:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in law holding that the assessee's activity of providing services is similar to the nature of services and activity of Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. ignoring the fact that activities of the assessee's are comparable to merchant banking/investment banking activities?" 3. The respondent-assessee is a company registered in India and is a part of the General Atlantic Group (GA). The respondent-assessee provides private Equity Investment Advisory Services to its Associated Enterprise(AE) i.e. to General A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Assessing Officer. This led to the Assessing Officer passing an Assessment Order dated 30th October, 2010 in line with the draft Assessment Order. 5. The respondent-assessee challenged the Assessment Order dated 30th October, 2010 of the Assessing Officer before the Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal on examination of the activities held that the respondent-assessee is not a merchant/investment banker but is an investment advisor. On facts it found that the respondent-assessee rendered advice to its AE i.e. M/s. GASC LLC of the possible companies in which it could invest in and received its consideration for rendering the advice. The AE i.e. M/s. GASC LLC took a final call on which companies to invest, if at all. In fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the respondent-assessee. According to him the activities of respondent-assessee are comparable to the activities of Merchant/ Investment Banker. Thus Mr. Kotangale prays that the appeal be entertained. 7. We find that the Tribunal has on application of Function, Assets and Risk (FAR) analysis found that the functions of the respondent-assessee are similar to that of M/s. Carlyle India viz. advising its AE on the possible companies it could invest in but the final decision whether to accept the advise of the respondent-assessee or not is taken by the AE. Similarly, so far as assets are concerned, the impugned order finds that the expertise available with M/s. Carlyle India is similar to the expertise available with the respondentassese....