TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jection of certain comparables. Therefore, at the outset, we propose to deal with the aforesaid issue raised by both the parties before us. 4. Brief facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Blackstone Group of companies situated in New York, U.S.A. As stated by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the assessee is engaged in providing a range of investment sub-advisory services relating to the Indian market to its overseas Associated Enterprises (A.E) belonging to Blackstone Group. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31st October 201, declaring total income of Rs. 13,25,18,104. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has entered into international transaction of providing investment sub-advisory services to its overseas A.E. and earned revenue therefrom, made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price (ALP). In course of proceedings before him, the Transfer Pricing Officer after examining the transfer pricing study report filed by the assessee noticed that the assessee has adopted Transactional Net Margie Method (TNM....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies selected by the assessee. The Transfer Pricing Officer rejected this comparable on the reasoning that the company is not functionally similar to the assessee on the basis functions provided, asset employed and risk undertaken. The Transfer Pricing Officer observed, while the assessee is providing investment advisory services, as per the information obtained under section 133(6) of the Act, this company provides management consultancy and advisory services to corporate banks, government, multilateral agencies, institutional agencies, etc. Whereas, the assessee is providing investment advisory services for private equity investment as well as real estate investment to the A.Es. Thus, he held that the company is not a comparable. This view of the Transfer Pricing Officer was also endorsed by the DRP. 9. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, functions performed by this company is more or less similar to the investment advisory services provided by the assessee to the A.Es. He submitted, in a number of cases relating to the very same assessment year the Tribunal held this company to be a comparable to an investment advisory service provider. In this context, he drew o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal after considering argument advanced by the Department regarding difference in skill set held that ICRA Management Consultancy Services is a valid comparable to a company providing non-binding investment advisory services. It is also relevant to note, in assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-10, this company has been accepted as a comparable by the DRP. Even otherwise also, the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer on difference in skill set between the assessee and the comparable company appears to be not on the basis of proper analysis of fact and more on assumption and presumption. As regards other functional differences of this comparable pointed by the learned Departmental Representative, it needs to be mentioned, neither Transfer Pricing Officer nor DRP have deliberated on those aspects. Since these issues raised by the learned Departmental Representative are completely new issues and never raised at any stage earlier, we do not consider it appropriate to deal with them as it requires verification of fresh facts. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal cited before us by the learned Authorised Representative, we direct the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal accepted this company as a comparable which was upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. While upholding the decision of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court observed that since the non-binding advisory service provided by the assessee is similar to the service provided by Carlyle India Ltd., wherein, IDC (India) Ltd. is accepted as a comparable there is no reason to defer with the decision of the Tribunal. It is necessary to observe, in case of other assessees engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory services akin to the assessee for the very same assessment year, the Tribunal has held that IDC (India) Ltd. is a good comparable. In this context, we refer to the decisions of the Tribunal in case of AGM India Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 87 taxmann.com 168 (Mum.). Moreover, in assessee's own case in the earlier assessment years, this company having been found to be functionally similar was accepted as a comparable. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to include this company as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as four different business verticals, such as, financial advisory, investment advisory, management and facilitation services and identifying investment opportunities, it is functionally different from the assessee. He submitted, though, the company has different segments, however, no segmental data is available in the annual report. Thus, he submitted, the company cannot be treated as a comparable. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- i) Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2017] 87 taxmann.com 168; and ii) Wells Fargo Real Estate Advisors |Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.1520/Mum./2016, dated 17.01.2018; iii) Carlyle India Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [2012] 24 taxmann.com 176. iv) IIML Assets Advisors Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.4060/Mum./ 2016, dated 20.06.2018. 25. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee further submitted, in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal has rejected this company as a comparable. 26. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the DRP. 27. We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record ....