AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 615
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om records are: The assessee company is engaged in provision of Investment Advisory Services to its group company. The assessee is a subsidiary of Kitara Capital Investments Ltd. based in Cayman Islands which in turn is held by Helcon Capital Holdings Co. SAOC Oman. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprise(AE) in providing investment advisory services. To benchmark its transaction, the assessee selected TNMM as the most appropriate method. The assessee applied OP/OC as its PLI. The assessee selected six companies as comparables within average weighted margin of -0.19%. The assessee claimed that since the profit margin of the assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is engaged in the business of providing Non-binding Investment Advisory Services to its clients based on research and analysis carried out by it. In lieu of services provided the assessee charge nominal fee. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the TPO could not appreciate business model of the assessee in right perspective and mixed it with the activities carried out by merchant /investment banking business. Consequently, the TPO rejected all the 6 comparables selected by the assessee and replaced the comparables engaged in merchant banking/investment banking activities. The Ld.Representative for the assessee filed a fact sheet explaining the difference between the activities carried out under investment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No2410/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2011-12 decided on 20/11/2018 reiterated its view by placing reliance on its earlier decision rendered for the assessment year 2008-09. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the DRP directed exclusion of 'Motilal' by following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Advisors Pvt. Ltd., assessment year 2008-09 (supra). 4.2 In respect of 'Ladderup', the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the DRP while upholding inclusion of said company the list of comparables has erred in observing that there is no evidence that the company had received income from merchant banking activities. The ld. Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities below. The only issue raised in the respective appeals by the assessee and the Revenue is exclusion/inclusion of comparables. The TPO has rejected all the comparables selected by the assessee and has introduced fresh two comparables i.e. 'Motilal' and 'Ladderup'. The DRP has directed to remove 'Motilal' from the list of comparables and has upheld inclusion of 'Ladderup'. Now, the assessee in appeal is seeking exclusion of 'Ladderup' from the list of comparables and the Revenue in cross appeal wants inclusion of 'Motilal'. Ladderup Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd. 7. The DRP has upheld inclusion of 'Ladderup' merely on the ground that the said company has not reported segment wise breakup of income and no income has been report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecent decision of the Tribunal rendered in Wells Fargo Real Estate Advisors Private Ltd. Vs DCIT [ITA No. 1520/M/2016 17/01/2018]. We also find that the reliance of the revenue on the case of AGM India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT [supra] was misplaced since no findings regarding this comparable has been given by the Tribunal in that order since the assessee came within the range of +/-5% even with inclusion of this comparable. Therefore, finding identical facts in the present case and respectfully following the judicial precedent, we direct exclusion of this comparable from final analysis." 7.1 Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal for exclusion of 'Ladderup' in the case of General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The relevant extract of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue is not in dispute. The DRP has excluded Motilal from the list of comparables by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT for assessment year 2008-09 (supra). We find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd.(supra) for assessment year 2011-12 has directed exclusion of 'Motilal', from the list of comparables. In the case of DCIT vs. General Atlantic (P) Ltd., the Tribunal has held that 'Motital' cannot be treated as comparables to an investment advisory service provider. The relevant extract of the finding of the Tribunal reads as under:- 17. As far as Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Ltd. is concerned, differen....