Standard Chartered Pvt Equity ... vs Dcit Cir 1(3), Mumbai on 8 February, 2019
13. Alternatively, we may herein observe that now when the
aforementioned company i.e Cyber Media Research Ltd. [formerly
known as IDC (India) Ltd] was selected by the TPO as a comparable in
the course of the benchmarking analysis in the assesses own case for
the earlier years i.e A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09, thus in the
absence of their being any change in the facts or the functional profile
of either the assessee or the abovementioned comparables it was not
correct on his part in taking an inconsistent approach and excluding
the same from the final list of comparables. Our aforesaid view that in
the absence of any change in the facts the principle of consistency has
to be followed is fortified by the judicial pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court viz. (i) Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT (1992)
193 ITR 321 (SC); (ii) CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR
295 (SC); and the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay i.e Pr. CIT Vs.
Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 280 of 2016) (Bom).
We thus on the basis of our aforesaid observations are also unable to
persuade ourselves to subscribe to the aforementioned inconsistent
approach adopted by the TPO for excluding the aforementioned
company viz. Cyber Media Research Ltd. as a comparable during the
year under consideration.