Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Grounds 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the teamed A.O based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP has, in arriving at the arithmetic mean of the comparable companies to benchmark the transaction of non- binding investment advisory services rendered by the Appellant, erred on the following grounds:
a. In rejecting ICRA Management Consulting Services Limited, ICRA Online Limited, Informed Technologies Limited, Integrated Capital Services Limited and Cyber Media Research Limited [formerly known as IDC (India) Limited] selected by the Appellant as comparable companies in the transfer pricing documentation maintained by the Appellant;

9. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that our indulgence in the present case is sought to adjudicate as to whether the rejection of the comparables selected by the assessee in its TP study report, and substitution of the same by a fresh set of comparables by the TPO in the final list of comparables, is in order or not. We shall first advert to the comparables which were selected by the assessee in its TP study report for benchmarking its international transactions pertaining to provision of Investment advisory services rendered to its AE, viz. (i) ICRA Managing Consulting Services Ltd; (ii) ICRA Online Ltd; (iii) Informed Technologies Ltd; (iv) Integrated Capital Services Ltd; and (v) IDC (India) Ltd. We find that as averred by the ld. A.R, the exclusion by the TPO of two comparables, viz (i) ICRA management Consultancy Services Ltd.; and (ii) Informed Technologies Ltd. in the case of the assessee for the immediate preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2011-12 was set aside by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal of the assessee for. AY 2011-12, viz. Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 477/Mum/2016 and AY 2011-12), dated 11.08.2017. We have perused the aforesaid order and find that while holding that ICRA management Consultancy Services Ltd was a good comparable and directing the AO/TPO to include the same in the final list of comparables, the Tribunal had in its aforesaid order observed as under:

P a g e | 12 Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Circle 14(3)(1) "9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material placed on record. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and find that the DRP as a matter of fact relying on the order passed by his predecessor in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the rejection of the aforesaid comparable, viz. ICRA Management Consultancy Services Limited by the TPO was upheld by his predecessor, had merely gone by the said very reason and upheld the rejection of the said comparable during the year under consideration. We find that the rejection of the aforesaid comparable by the AO/TPO in A.Y. 2010-11 had been set aside by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee, reported as Temasek Holding Advisors India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle 14(3)(1), Mumbai, vide order dated 25.02.2016, wherein the Tribunal had categorically held that the aforesaid company, viz. ICRA Management Consultancy Services Limited was a good comparable and had directed the inclusion of the same in the list of the final comparables. We are of the considered view that now when the order of the AO/TPO in the case of the assessee for the immediately preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2010-11, therein excluding the aforesaid comparable, viz. ICRA Management Consultancy Services Limited had been set aside by the Tribunal, therefore the rejection of the said comparable, viz. ICRA Management Consultancy Services Limited by the A.O during the year under consideration pursuant to the direction of the DRP, wherein the latter had merely followed the order of his predecessor so passed in the case of the assessee for. A.Y. 2010-11, which as observed by us hereinabove had been set aside by the Tribunal, thus cannot be upheld and is liable to be vacated on the said count itself. We are further persuaded to subscribe to the contention of the ld. A.R that cherry picking of the comparables every year by the TPO, without pointing out that the facts in context of the comparables accepted in the preceding years had changed during the year under consideration, cannot be permitted. We further find that the aforesaid comparable, viz. ICRA Management Consultancy Services Limited had also been held to be a good comparable by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for A.Y(s). 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, while for in the earlier years the TPO himself had accepted the said company as a comparable. Thus in the totality of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to take a divergent view, and thus set aside the order of the AO/TPO rejecting the aforesaid comparable, and therein direct that the same be included in the final list of the comparables."

We thus being of the considered view that as both of the aforesaid comparables, viz (i) ICRA management Consultancy Services Ltd.; and

(ii) Informed Technologies Ltd. had been held by the Tribunal to be good comparables while disposing of the appeal of the assessee for the immediately preceding year, viz. A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, now when there is no change in the functional profile of the said respective comparables as in comparison to that of the assessee company, and the facts and circumstances involved therein remain the same, thus it can safely be concluded that the assessee had rightly included the said comparables in its TP study report for benchmarking its P a g e | 14 Temasek Holdings Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Circle 14(3)(1) international transactions pertaining to provision of Investment advisory services rendered to its AE. We thus direct the AO/TPO to include the aforesaid comparables, viz. (i) ICRA management Consultancy Services Ltd.; and (ii) Informed Technologies Ltd. in the final list of comparables. We find that though the assessee had in its Ground of appeal No. 4 assailed the exclusion of the remaining three comparables which were selected by it for benchmarking its international transactions, viz. (i) Integrated Capital Services ltd; (ii) ICRA Online Ltd; and (iii) Cyber Media Research Ltd, from the final list of comparables by the TPO while determining the ALP of the international transactions of the assessee, however, as no submissions had been advanced before us as regards the same, therefore, we refrain from adjudicating the same.