TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for our consideration: "1. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, is the Tribunal justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition in respect of transaction charges amounting to Rs. 2,86,69,998/? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, is the Tribunal justified in directing the Assessing Officer to factor in the additional interest earned by the Assessee while computing the brokerage income earned by the Assessee by rendering brokerage services to its AEs? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal justified in rejecting Keynote Corporate Services Limited as a comparable on the ground of it being undergone an amalgamation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and against the revenue by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. 383 ITR 1. In the above decision it is held that no tax is deductible on the transaction charges under Section 194J of the Act. (iv) Therefore, the question as proposed stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court, no substantial question of law arises. Thus, not entertained. 5.Re:Question No.2 (i) The respondent interalia provided broking services for future and option trade to is AE's. The TPO while determining the ALP of the respondents services for future and option trade adopted the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method to determine the ALP of its brokerage services in respect of future and option trade to A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnover basis adopted by the TPO. (v) We find that the view taken by the Tribunal on these facts is a reasonable view, being directly linked to the interest earned on the margin money deposited by the AE's and unrelated parties while engaging the services of the respondent as a broker in future and option trade. (vi) As the view taken is a plausible view, the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. Re:Question No.3 (i) The respondent-assessee rendered merchant banking services to its AE's. These services were bench marked with similar services by others to determine the ALP by using the Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method. The TPO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned and thus would cease to be an appropriate comparable. The above decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before this Court in case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 Vs. Petro Araldite Pvt. Ltd. (ITXA No. 1804 of 2013) on this very issue and it was admitted on 24th November, 2015. Therefore, it is submitted that this question also ought to be admitted. (iv) Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent invited our attention to the final decision of this Court in The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Aptara Technology Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.1209 of 2015) decided on 26th March 2018 and The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune Vs. PTC Software (I) Pvt.Ltd. (I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roposed question is covered by the decision of this Court, no substantial question of law arises. Thus, not entertained. 7. Re:Question No.4 (i) The TPO had included M/s Khandwala Securities Limited in the final list of comparable to determine the ALP of Merchant Banking Services provided by the respondent to its AE's. (ii) The respondent in appeal before the Tribunal contended that M/s Khandwala Securities Limited ought to be excluded from the list of comparables as the services rendered by it is that of securities and stock brokers and therefore not comparable to the services rendered by the respondent-assessee of Merchant Banking i.e. Investment Advisory Services. (iii) Before the Tribunal the only contention urged by the....