TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the following comparables in the T.P. analyasis :- * Cheers Interactive (India) Private Ltd ('Cheers Interactive') * Cross Domain Solutions Private Ltd ('Cross Domain') 4. Brief facts of the case are as under :- Carlyle India Advisors Private Limited is a subsidiary of Carlyle Asia Investment Advisors Limited ('Carlyle Hong Kong') and is engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory and related support services. During the course of assessment proceedings, the international transactions entered into by the Assessee with its AEs were referred by the AO to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer- 1(3)(1), Mumbai ('the TPO'), for determination of arm's length price ('ALP') under section 92CA of the Act. The TPO vide order passed under section 92CA(3) dated 31 October 2018 has proposed an adjustment of INR 26,33,04,278/-. 5. The DRP in-principle upheld the order of the TPO. However, the DRP had directed the assessee on a without prejudice basis, to a conduct a fresh benchmarking of companies engaged in provisions of KPO services, based on which the DRP in its directions agreed to include two addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Mohan submitted that as regards the issue of characterisation of the assessee he fairly admitted that ITAT in assessee's own case in earlier year has accepted the assessee's plea that it should not be characterised as a KPO instead of provider of nonbinding investment advisory and related support services 11. As regards the issue of inclusion of the 3 companies in the comparability analysis lamely Almondz Global Securities Ltd, Crisil Risk and Infrastructure Solutions and ICRA Management Consulting Services the learned departmental representative fairly agreed that ITAT in assessee's own case in earlier year has accepted these companies to be comparable to the assessee. 12. As regards the issue of exclusion of Eclerx services Ltd., learned departmental representative agreed that ITAT in assessee's own case in earlier year has accepted the exclusion of this company as it was found that this company was not comparable, to that of the assessee. However, as regards the issue of exclusion of Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Cross Domain Solutions Pvt. Limited. The learned departmental representative submitted that this issue was also there in earlier year but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntrary law is also brought to our notice. More over the international transaction related with provision of non-binding investment advisory and related supported services, reported by the assessee in its Form3CEB, was identified and examined by TPO for computation of ALP. Thus, in absence of any contrary law or fact and respectfully following the decision of earlier years wherein the assessee was held as engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory and related support services. With the aforesaid observation, we hold that lower authority was not correct in re-characterizing the assessee as KPO in place of providing non-binding investment advisory and related support services of the year under consideration. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed." 16. As regards the issue of inclusion of the three companies namely (i) Almondz Global Securities Ltd. (ii) Crisil Risk & Infrastructure Solutions Ltd. (iii)ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. the ITAT has held as under :- "We have considered the submission of both the parties and find that coordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No. 6321/Mum/2017 dated 27.02.2019 while ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i). Radhsoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) and (ii). CIT Vs. Excel Industries ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Quest Investments Advisory Pvt. ltd. (ITA No. 280 of 2016) (Bom). Apart therefrom, we find that Crisil Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Ltd. was in itself accepted by the TPO as a comparable in the case of certain assesses which were providing investment advisory services viz. (i) Kitara Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITA No. 130/Mum/2014; and (ii) General Atlantic (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 64 taxamann.com 423 (Mumbai). We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the TPO/DRP has erred in excluding the aforementioned company viz. Crisil Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Ltd. from the final list of the comparables. In terms of our aforesaid observations, we herein direct the A.O/TPO to include the said company viz. Crisil Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Ltd. in the final list of comparables for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee during the year under consideration. (B) ALMONDZ GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD: We have perused the "Ann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry and management consultancy, while for the assessee is into providing non-binding investment advisory services. In our considered view as the functions performed in investment advisory as well as in management consultancy remain the same, thus a company providing management consultancy can safely be taken as a comparable as against that involved in providing investment advisory. We find that the various objections raised and the basis adopted by the ld. D.R to justify the exclusion of the aforementioned company viz. ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as comparable in the case of the assessee, had been rebutted and dislodged by the ld. A.R in his submissions placed in the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13. We are of the considered view that as the facts of the case before us, as well as the functional profile of the assessee and the aforementioned company viz. ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. had not witnessed any change during the year under consideration, therefore, our observations recorded for including the said company as a comparable in the case of the assessee for A.Y 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2013-....