Bombay High Court
The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 ... vs M/S. Blackstone Advisors India Pvt Ltd on 11 March, 2019
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sarang V. Kotwal
1 16-ITXA 8-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.8 OF 2017
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, ]
Mumbai. ] ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Blackstone Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. ] ... Respondent
Mr. Sham V. Walve for Appellant.
Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Divesh Chawla i/b Mr. Atul
Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM :- AKIL KURESHI &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE :- 11 MARCH, 2019 P. C. :-
1. The Revenue has filed this Appeal raising following questions for our consideration :
(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in directing not to consider the case of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, when the same was within the terms of Rule 10B(2) ?
(B) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in directing not to consider the case of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors URS 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:08:22 :::
2 16-ITXA 8-17.odt Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, when it's P & L showed operational income from advisory fees, the same as that of assessee and instead to place reliance on Director's report which had categorized activities engaged by said company as Equity Capital Markets, Mergers & acquisitions, Private Equity syndication and structured debt, would not make such reliance against the ambit of Rule 10B(2) ?
(C) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in directing not to consider the case of Brescon Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, when the same was within the terms of Rule 10B(2) ?
(D) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in directing not to consider the case of Brescon Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, when equity related advisory is also part of its activities and not just Merchant Banking activities and that all these activities fall in overall ambit of Investment advisory and therefore within the ambit of Rule 10B(2) ?
(E) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in directing to consider the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable, when the same was not within the terms of Rule 10B(2) ?
(F) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified, in directing to consider the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. by stating that this company's core competence is mainly advisory services, when the revenue generation by this company is from consultancy, which being vastly different from investment advisory services, would warrant exclusion in terms of Ruls 19B(2) ?
URS 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:08:22 :::
3 16-ITXA 8-17.odt
2. Since the issues raised by the Revenue in this Appeal are covered by earlier orders passed by this Court, we may record brief reasons only for dismissing this Appeal.
3. The Respondent - Assessee is held to be an investment sub-advisor by the Tribunal, with respect to which the Revenue has not raised any dispute in this Appeal. The dispute raised by the Revenue relates to either inclusion or exclusion of certain comparables by the Tribunal while carrying out FAR in case of the Assessee. The Tribunal discarded two entities namely Motilal Oswal Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and Brescon Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that these companies were merchant bankers or investment bankers and cannot be compared with the Assessee who was investment sub-advisor. The third instance of comparable is of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. The Tribunal accepted the Assessee's contention that ICRA Management provided a safe comparable. The Revenue disputes these three findings of the Tribunal.
URS 3 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:08:22 :::
4 16-ITXA 8-17.odt
4. Through Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai Vs. Carlyle India Advisors (P) Ltd. 1, this Court has confirmed the Tribunal's view that the case of investment advisor or sub-advisor cannot be compared with a merchant banker or investment banker. The first two instances discarded by the Tribunal, therefore, do not call for any interference.
5. Insofar as the comparison with ICRA Investment is concerned, here also, the issue is covered against the Revenue in the decision of The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd.2
6. In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) 1 [2013] 32 taxmann.com. 23 (Bombay) - IT Appeal (L) No.1286 of 2012, decided on February 22, 2013 2 Income Tax Appeal No.1051 of 2014, decided on 17th November, 2016 URS 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:08:22 :::