TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 2015
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), thereby resulting into transfer pricing addition / adjustment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred and the Hon'ble CIT(A) further erred in upholding / confirming the action of the learned AO in rejecting the contention of the Appellant to compute the margin of the alleged comparable companies based on multiple year financial data. 3. The CIT(A) / AO erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law by not taking cognizance of the functions and risk of the Appellant as outlined in the Transfer Pricing documentation and as submitted during the course of the proceedings and the learned CIT(A) further grievously erred in disregarding the functional and risk profile of the appellant by making certain incorrect, irrelevant and unsubstantiated observations. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C1T(A) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant is essentially a non-binding investment advisory services provider. 5. The CIT(A) / AO erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in rejecting 2 comparables out of total 5 comparables, identified by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he most appropriate method, operating profit to total operating expenses as profit level indicator and has conducted its search for comparables in prowess and capitaline database applying following filters: Reject companies having mfg sales to total sales ratio of more than 25% of sales Reject companies having trading sales to total sales ratio of more than 25% of sales Reject companies having fund based income to total income ratio of more than 25% Reject companies having R&D expenses to sales ratio of more than 5% of sales Reject companies with Imentory to total assets ratio of more than 5% The assessee arrived at five comparables and used three year data to arrive at the arithmetic mean of such margin at 10.25%, since its own margin has been computed at 10.64%, the assessee has treated the transactions to be at arm's length. 5. The AO has rejected the study conducted by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not used the RPT filler and that functionally different companies were selected as comparables. He rejected four of the five comparables selected by the appellant, added two of his own comparables and arrived at a arithmet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013) 2008-09 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in the case of Apax Partners India Advisers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1682/Mum/2014) 2009-10 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in case of Temasek Holdings Advisors (1) P. Ltd (ITA. No.6504/Mum/2012) 2008-09 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in case of Temasek Holdings Advisors (1) P. Ltd (ITA. No.968/Mum/2014) 2009-10 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in case of Temasek Holdings Advisors (1) P. Ltd (ITA. No. 776/Mum/2015) 2010-11 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in case of Temasek Holdings Advisors (1) P. Ltd (ITA. No. 477/Mum/2016) 2011-12 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in case of Temasek Holdings Advisors (1) P. Ltd (ITA. No. 1429/Mum/2017) 2012-13 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in case of AGM India Advisors Private Limited ITA No. 4801/MUM/2015) 2010-11 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in the case of Warburg Pincus India P. Ltd. (ITA No. 1612/Mum/2015) 2010-11 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in the case of Warburg Pincus India P. Ltd. (ITA No. 1717/Mum/2014) 2009-10 Mumbai Tribunal ruling in case of General Atlantic Private Limited (ITA No. 1019/MUM/2014) 2009-10 Delhi Tribunal ruling in case of Avenue Asia Advisors (ITA No. 6683/Del/2013) 2009-10 Mumbai T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (v) AGM India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 4456/Mum/2015, dated 18.05.2016 AY 2010-11). The Ld. AR further drawing support from the fact that the aforesaid order of the Tribunal so passed in the case of General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had thereafter been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of : CIT Vs. General Atlantic Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 8914 of 2010, dated 08.03.2016 - A.Y 200607), therein submitted that now when pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court the functional comparability of the aforesaid comparable was no more res- integra therefore the adverse inferences so drawn by the lower authorities were liable to be set aside. That on the other hand the Ld. D.R though conceded to the fact that the RPT in the case of the aforesaid comparable was 14%, but however drawing support from the director's report for the year under consideration, therein submitted that the focus area of the said comparable, viz ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. (supra) was not merely investment advisory functions, but rather the same was substantially functionally different. It was further averred by the Ld. D.R that a perusal....