TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude the case of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, basing its decision on the decision in the case of Carlyle Advisors Pvt. Ltd., in which the said comparable was not even discussed? I(a). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the exclusion of the comparable M/s. Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. holding that the same is engaged in M & A advisory services and that these activities are far wider and much different from the investment advisory services carried on by the assessee, when it has accepted in the same year, the inclusion of ICRA Management Services, which is also engaged in M & A advisory services, as a comparable? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable without appreciating the fact that the said company is engaged primarily in technical and operati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see? III(b). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of IDC (India) Ltd. as a comparable, ignoring the fact that the said company engages in the use of intangibles which is not done by the assessee and hence cannot be taken as a fit comparable as per the decisions in Motorolla Solutions India P Ltd. (48 taxmann.com 248), MSC Software (80 taxmann.com 55) and 24/7 Customer.Com (28 taxmann.com 258)? 4. As would be evident from the above, the first two questions relate to exclusion of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable; question numbers II to II(b) relate to inclusion of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable; again question numbers III to III(b) relate to inclusion of IDC (India) Ltd. as a comparable. 5. The above questions have been raised on the basis of the following factual narrative. 6. Respondent is an assessee under the Act, its status being that of a resident company. It is engaged in the business of providing non-binding investment advisory services. The assessment year under consideration is 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Offier passed a draft assessment order dated 20.03.2015 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144-C(1) of the Act adding the quantum of transfer pricing adjustment to the total income of the assessee. It was mentioned therein that if the assessee desired, it could file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel within the stipulated period failing which final assessment order would be passed. 10. Respondent filed objection to the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai which heard both the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Regarding exclusion of ICRA as a comparable, Dispute Resolution Panel agreed with the views of the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was held that activities performed by ICRA being functionally different from the assessee it could not be considered as a good comparable. As regards IDC, the Dispute Resolution Panel also took a similar view affirming the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer. In so far Motilal Oswal is concerned, the Dispute Resolution Panel followed earlier decisions of the Tribunal and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude Motilal Oswal from the list o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Tribunal that it was not a product company but was a research company primarily dealing in research and survey services. It was also found that operational efficiency, future outlook etc. of IDC were similar to that of the functions and activities performed by the assessee for rendering investment advisory services. Considering the above, Tribunal held that ICRA and IDC should be included in the final list of valid comparables. Accordingly the appeal of the Assessing Officer was dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed with consequential deletion of the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer. 15. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us raising the above questions for consideration. 16. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 17. As would be evident from the above, grievance of the appellant i.e., the Revenue primarily revolves around exclusion of Motilal Oswal from the list of valid comparables and inclusion of ICRA and IDC as valid comparables. While in the case of Motilal Oswal the exclusion was directed by the Dispute Resolution Panel which decision was approved or rather affirmed by the Tribunal, in the cas....