AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances of the case, the AO erred in inadvertently adjusting an amount of Rs. 81,80,657/- instead of Rs. 81,08,657/- thereby resulting in an erroneous addition to the extent of Rs. 72,000/-" A perusal of Grounds of appeal reveal, the solitary dispute relates to addition of Rs. 81,80,657/- made by the Transfer Pricing Officer while determining the Arm's Length Price of international transaction of provision of Investment Advisory Services by the assessee to its Associate Enterprise. 3. The facts relevant to address the controversy raised in this appeal can be summarized as follows. The appellant before us is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is, inter alia, engaged in the business of providing non-binding investment advisory services. For the year under consideration, it filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,83,69,560/-, which was subject to scrutiny assessment whereby the total income has been assessed at Rs. 5,65,50,220/-. The difference between the assessed and returned income comprised of Rs. 81,08,657/-, which was transfer pricing adjustment worked out by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in his order passed u/s.92CA(3) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous objections before the DRP. The DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee passed directions, dated 22.12.2015, in terms of which the Assessing Officer, worked out the final assessment by making a Transfer Pricing addition of Rs. 81,80,657/-, which was based on re-working done by the TPO in compliance to the directions of the DRP dated 22.12.2015(supra). Not being satisfied with the assessment, assessee is in appeal before us assailing the addition of Rs. 81,80,657/- as per the Grounds of appeal before us. 4. Though the assessee has raised an omnibus Ground of appeal challenging the addition of Rs. 81,80,657/-, but the specific points raised before us are two-fold, which revolve around the inclusion and/or exclusion of certain concerns from the final set of comparatives. Firstly, the plea of the learned representative is that the TPO erred in not including i) Cyber Media Research Ltd. and ii) Primary Real Estate Advisors Private Limited, in the final comparables. Secondly, it is convassed that the TPO erroneously included Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited as comparable, which ought to be excluded. 5. The inclusion of Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concern engaged in provision of non-binding investment advisory services. In fact, the decision of our Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. General Atlantic (P.) Ltd.(supra), has also been rendered for A.Y. 2011-12 itself, which is the year under consideration before us and, therefore, the factual findings of the Co-ordinate Bench are fully applicable to the case before us. Thus, following the aforesaid precedents, which have been rendered under identical circumstances, we uphold the plea of the assessee for exclusion of Ladderup Corporate Advisory Private Limited from the final set of comparable in order to arrive at Arm's Length Price. 8. The next plea of the assessee seeks inclusion of Cyber Media Research Ltd. (formerly known as IDC (India) Ltd.), in the final set of comparables. The relevant discussion in the order of TPO reveals that the said concern has been excluded from the final set of comparables on the ground that it was functionally operating in different field. According to the TPO, as per para 3.4.2 of his order, the said concern was engaged in the business of services of media and media related services including research based insights and consulting servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Carlyle India Advisors (P.) Ltd (supra), has been further affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The learned representative also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of AGM India Advisors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), which has been rendered for A.Y. 2011-12 i.e. the assessment year which is under consideration before us also. Notably, in AGM India Advisors (P.) Ltd (supra), the tested transaction was also providing of non-binding investment advisory services and IDC (India) Ltd. was found to be a good comparable by the Tribunal. The aforesaid decisions, in our view, clearly support the proposition sought to be convassed by the assessee for inclusion of Cyber Media Research Ltd. (formerly known as IDC (India) Ltd.) as a concern in the final set of comparables. 10. The learned CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue supported the discussion made by the lower authorities in the respective orders and also relied upon the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Actis Adviers (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (55 taxman.com 485) to say that in the context of investment advisory services, IDC (India) Ltd. (later known as Cyber Media Research Ltd.) has not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f TPG Capital India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), wherein also the tested transaction was providing of investment advisory services. In the said decision reliance placed by the Revenue in the case of Tevapharm (P.) Ltd. (supra), in order of justify the exclusion of IDC (India) Ltd. did not find favour with the Bench. Therefore, on the issue of inclusion of IDC (India) Ltd. (later known as Cyber Media Research Ltd.) we also, uphold the plea of the assessee and direct that the said concern be included in the final set of comparable for the purpose of computing the Arm's Length Price. On this aspect, it may also be noted that for A.Y. 2012-13, the TPO vide its order, dated 27.01.2016, under section 92CA(3) accepted the inclusion of the said concern in the final set of comparables, and a copy of the said order has also been placed before us. 13. The next plea of the assessee was for inclusion of Primary Real Estate Advisors Private Limited in the final comparables. The TPO has excluded the said concern on the ground that it was engaged in advising for real estate investment and was servicing land owners, developers, overseas investors and domestic investors. It was not providing any po....