Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. That on facts and in law, the Ld. TPO/ AO/ CIT(A) have erred by selecting functionally dissimilar companies (including CRISIL Limited and ICRA Limited) to the final set of comparables for the impugned transaction and have thus resorted to cherry picking of comparables to determine the ALP for the impugned transaction.

5. That on facts and in law, the Ld. TPO/ AO/ CIT(A) have passed an order which has computational errors in the margin of comparable companies, used in the determination of the ALP.

S.No. Name of the Company Adjusted Operating Profit Margin (weighted average for 99-00 and 00-01) 1 CRISIL Ltd. 54.42% 2 Gilcon Project Services Ltd. -.97% 3 ICRA Ltd. 52.47% 4 IGE (India) Ltd. 5.86% 5 KITCO Ltd. .68% 6 NIS Sparta Ltd. 6.29% 7 Water & Power Consultancy 11.93% Services (I) Ltd.

26. Furthermore, from the financial conditions explained at page 423 of the annual report, it has come on record that huge intangibles have been employed by CRISIL in order to achieve its targets, which make it incomparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer. Consequently, we order to exclude CRISIL from the final set of comparables.

ICRA LIMITED (ICRA)

27. This is TPO's comparable which the taxpayer has sought to exclude from the final set of comparables on ground of functional dissimilarity. However, the ld. TPO retained ICRA on the ground that it is operating in similar field of credit rating business and financial advisory services to its clients. Undisputedly, ICRA has been rejected as a valid comparable by the Revenue on the objection of functional dissimilarity raised by the taxpayer in AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10, as per compilation given by the taxpayer during the course of arguments available on record.

28. Moreover, perusal of the annual report, available at pages 547, 553 & 557 of the paper book, shows that there is no segmental information available and keeping in view the diversified function performed by ICRA, it cannot be taken at entity level. Moreover, under TNMM, the TPO has a wide discretion of choosing comparables as there is wide range of such comparables available for benchmarking the international transactions.

29. Furthermore, ICRA has been held to be incomparable vis-à- vis the taxpayer by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the taxpayer's own case for AY 2007-08 (supra) by holding that since ICRA has been providing advisory services, it can be a no match to the company providing actual marketing support services. Since there is no change in the profile of the taxpayer during the year under assessment as it has been providing similar marketing support services to its AE, ICRA is not a valid comparable vis-à- vis taxpayer, hence ordered to be excluded.