TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partly allowed. In the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant/revenue proposed the following issues to be deliberated upon by us: "I. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is justified in directing to exclude certain comparables simply by following the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 to 2009-10, without appreciating that for selection of comparables for determination of arm's length price of an International transaction, the exercise contemplated under Section 92C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 r/w Rule 108 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, needs to be carried out on case to case basis and also comparable to comparable basis and depends upon the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....comparables was worked out at 6.28%. 2.3 The margin shown by the respondent/assessee being much higher, to the tune of 25.84%, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not accept the benchmarking, though accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate method with the operating profit to operating cost as profit level indicator. The TPO opined that the respondent/ assessee had not applied appropriate qualitative and quantitative filters, which had led to exclusion of functionally similar comparables and inclusion of companies which are not comparable. 2.4 That being so, the TPO proceeded to select fresh comparables independently and in that process short listed 13 companies as comparables with average margin of 43.01%. In the said process, out of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous application filed by the respondent/assessee, the learned Tribunal took note of rectifiable mistakes and consequently recalled the appeal order for limited purposes of deciding five grounds mainly pertaining to the issue of applicability of certain filters while selecting comparables and risk adjustment. After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2022. 2.8 Hence the present appeal. 3. Broadly speaking, in the impugned order the learned Tribunal held that in consonance with the earlier decision of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal pertaining to the respondent/assessee for Assessment Year 200910, the comparable namely Motilal Oswal Advisors Pvt. Ltd. could not be excluded; that the other compar....