TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made of Rs. 77.09.785 on account of transfer pricing adjustment, however, the dispute is basically confined to selection/rejection of certain comparables. Before we proceed to deal with the specific dispute raised before us, it is necessary to briefly narrate the relevant facts relating to the issue in dispute. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee is a resident company and part of Clearwater Capital Partners (CCP Group), which is an investment firm founded in the year 2001. The assessee is a subsidiary of CCP Cyprus and is basically engaged in providing investment sub advisory services to its Associated Enterprises (AE) CCP, Singapore. During the year under consideration the assessee provided non-binding investment advisory services to its AE ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment order. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition by filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, upheld the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer. 5. Shri Farookh V. Irani, learned Counsel for the assessee confined his submissions to selection/rejection of three comparables. Hereafter, we will be dealing with these comparables. i) ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES LTD. 6. Objecting to the rejection of this company, the learned Counsel submitted, the company is functionally similar to the assessee, hence, there is no reason to reject this company. He submitted, 75% of the Revenue earned by the company is from consulting fees which is suggestive of the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Jurisdictional High Court. After analyzing the function, asset and risk (FAR) of this company, the Tribunal found that the service provided by this company is akin to the service provided by an investment advisory service provider. Therefore, this company has been found to be a good comparable. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee, as referred to above, clearly support this view. In fact, in assessee's own case in Assessment Year 2010-11, though this company was rejected by the TPO, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) having found this company to be functionally similar, accepted it as a comparable. This is evident from the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA no.5142/Mum./2017, dated 10th January 2010....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppears to be functionally similar to the assessee. In fact, in various decisions cited before us, some of which relate to the impugned assessment year, the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that this company is functionally similar to an investment advisory service provider. Therefore, following the consistent view expressed in relation to this company in the judicial precedents referred to above, we direct the Assessing Officer to include this company as a comparable. iii) INTEGRATED CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. 12. Objecting to selection of this company, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, though, in the transfer pricing study report, the assessee due to lack of proper information/availability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s DCIT, ITA no. 923/Mum./2015, dated 24.04.2015. 13. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 14. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. No doubt, the assessee had selected this company as a comparable. However, from the show cause notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer himself, it becomes very clear that he himself considers the company as functionally dissimilar to the assessee, hence, not comparable, though, in the final analysis he had selected the company as a comparable. It is further relevant to observe, in assessee's own case in assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Transfer Pricing Officer h....