Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP erred in upholding the action of the AO/TPO of rejecting the Transfer Pricing Study maintained by the Appellant and the fresh search subsequently submitted by the Appellant.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the DRP erred in upholding the action of the AO/TPO of excluding the comparables i.e. Cyber Media Research Ltd., Frontline Venture Services Private Limited and Primary Real Estate Advisors Private Limited, without appreciating the functional comparability of the said comparables.

     Sr. No.   Name of the company                    PLI based on single
                                                      year data (%)
     1.        Cyber Media Research Ltd.              10.71
     2.        Frontline Venture Services Pvt. Ltd.   1.70
                                                                                                                P a g e |4

Bain Capital Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1)

3. Primary Real Estate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 3.85 Arithmetic Mean 5.42 It was claimed by the assessee that as its own margin of 20% was higher than the arithmetic mean of 5.42% of the aforementioned three comparables, therefore, the value of the international transactions entered into by it were at arm‟s length. The TPO rejected the aforesaid three comparables of the assessee and proposed a set of three comparables viz. (i). Motilal Oswal Investments Pvt. ltd (OP/TC:

5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (for short „DRP‟). The assessee assailed the exclusion of its comparables viz. (i) Cyber Media Research Ltd (formerly IDC India Ltd.); (ii) Frontline Venture Services Private Ltd;

and (iii) Primary Real Estate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Further, the inclusion of the three new comparables by the DRP viz. (i) Motilal Oswal Investments Advisors Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Ladder up Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd.; and (iii) Motilal Oswal Equity Advisors Pvt. Ltd. was also assailed before the DRP. The DRP was not persuaded to accept the claim of the assessee that the TPO had erred in rejecting the comparables which were selected by the assessee, and therein upheld the order of the TPO P a g e |5 Bain Capital Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1)(1) to the said extent. Insofar the inclusion of the three new comparables by the TPO was concerned, the DRP finding favour with the claim of the assessee rejected the inclusion of one of the comparable by the TPO, viz. Motilal Oswal Investment Advisory Pvt. Ltd. However, the inclusion of the remaining two comparables which were selected by the TPO was upheld by the DRP. Accordingly, the DRP directed the AO to give effect to his directions as per the provisions of Sec.144C(13) of the I-T Act.