M/s. GECAS Services (India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

CO 217/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5453 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SREENIVASA RAO SENIOR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-1: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER CROSS OBJECTION NO.217/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S GECAS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD., 401-402, 4 TH FLOOR, AGGARWAL MILLENNIUM TOWER, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, WAZIRPUR, NEW DELHI. PAN : AACCG4316Q. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), ROOM NO.334A, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI 110 002. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SACHIT JOLLY, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. SREENIVASA RAO, SENIOR DR. DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.10.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM :- THIS CROSS-OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8 TH JANUARY, 2015 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI UNDER C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 2 SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS GROUP AFFILIATES AND PARTICULARLY GECAS SERVICES LIMITED, IRELAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE) :- S.NO. INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS VALUE IN TRANSACTIONS 1 MARKET SUPPORT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RENDERED RS.4,57,43,014/- 3. THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES WERE REFERRED TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP). THE TPO PASSED THE ORDER DATED 22 ND JANUARY, 2014 WHEREIN HE MADE AN ADJUSTMENT OF `47,32,323/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALP OF THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO PROVISION OF MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES. VIDE NOTICE DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2014, THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENT OF `47,32,323/- DETERMINED BY THE TPO ON ACCOUNT OF ALP RELATING TO PROVISIONS OF MARKETING SUPPORT C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 3 SERVICES TO ITS AE AND WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT ITS REPLY/EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SAME. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED REPLY ON 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2014 WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). WHILE DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DRP, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17 TH DECEMBER, 2014, UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE DRAFT ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE TPO. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 8 TH JANUARY, 2015. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS- OBJECTION IN APPEAL NO.1113/DEL/2015 FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE INSTRUCTION OF CBDT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING GROUND NO.7 OF THE CROSS-OBJECTION, WHICH IS AS UNDER :- 7) THAT THE FOLLOWING COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO AND CONFIRMED BY THE DRP ARE NOT COMPARABLES TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE: (I) APTICO LTD. (II) GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. (III) QUIPPO VALUERS AND AUCTIONEERS PVT.LTD. (IV) TSR DARASHAW LTD. C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 4 5. GROUND NO.7 DESCRIBES FOUR COMPARABLES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED BY THE TPO IN FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TPO AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED AT ANY POINT OF TIME THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PHILIP MORRIS SERVICES INDIA S.A. VS. ACIT BEING ITA NO.1408/DEL/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ORDER DATED 19 TH JULY, 2018, WHEREIN THE SAME FOUR COMPARABLES WERE EXCLUDED ON THE GROUND OF FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THEREIN. 6. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS GROUND NO.9 RELATING TO NOT ALLOWING CREDIT FOR SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF 13,71,911/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID ISSUE SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY THE TPO/AO WHICH WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TPO/AO AND DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT RECORDS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT ANY POINT OF TIME. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LEARNED DR COULD NOT C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 5 DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PHILIP MORRIS SERVICES INDIA S.A. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) RELATING TO FOUR COMPARABLES WHICH HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE TPO/AO TO EXCLUDE THESE COMPARABLES IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE HELD AS UNDER :- 4. BEFORE TAKING UP THE COMPARABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE COMPANIES ASSAILED BEFORE US, IT IS SINE QUA NON TO CONSIDER THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ITS AE ON 01.04.2007 TO BE READ ALONG WITH AN AMENDMENT AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2008, UNDER WHICH IT AGREED TO CARRY OUT MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES IN INDIA, NEPAL, BANGLADESH AND AFGHANISTHAN. THE AE AGREED TO REIMBURSE ALL DIRECT MARKETING EXPENSES (DME), INCLUDING, EVENTS SPONSORSHIP AND AGENCY COSTS; TRADE MARKETING EXPENSES (TME), INCLUDING, SALE MATERIALS, TRADE EVENTS, DISPLAY RENTALS, TRADE AND BRAND SUPPORT EXPENSES; ALLOWANCES AND TRAVEL COSTS TO THE ASSESSEE ON A MARK-UP OF 10%. IN A NUTSHELL, THE ASSESSEE RENDERED MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ITS AE IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN INDIA, NEPAL, BANGLADESH AND AFGHANISTHAN. WITH THE ABOVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF FUNCTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION, WE WILL NOW ESPOUSE FOR DETERMINATION THE FOUR COMPARABLE COMPANIES CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SERIATIM. I. APITCO LIMITED . C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 6 5. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED AGAINST THE FUNCTIONAL INCOMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY BEFORE THE TPO BY PUTTING FORTH THAT THIS COMPANY WAS PROVIDING HIGH-END DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES. SUCH CONTENTION DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE TPO, WHO TREATED THIS COMPANY AS COMPARABLE BY INCLUDING ITS OP/OC AT 40.09%. 6. WE HAVE ANALYZED THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THIS REPORT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ITS `INCOME FROM OPERATIONS STANDS AT RS.15,41,75,273/-, BREAK-UP OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN AS PER SCHEDULE 11, AS UNDER:- INCOME FROM OPERATIONS MICRO ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT SKILL DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT TOURISM & RESEARCH STUDIES PROJECT RELATED SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT ENERGY RELATED SERVICES CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ASSET RECONSTRUCTION & MANAGEMENT SERVICES EMERGING AREAS 5,283,039 27,575,000 10,873,397 14,835,450 32,600,996 3,998,796 4,835,206 47,986,516 5,503,141 683,732 7. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY APITCO LIMITED REVEALS THAT THIS COMPANY IS PROVIDING SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF PROJECT REPORT PREPARATION, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 7 STUDIES, FEASIBILITY STUDIES, MICRO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT, SKILL DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, ENERGY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, MARKET AND SOCIAL RESEARCH AND ASSET RECONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES. NO SEGMENT-WISE PROFITABILITY DATA OF THESE SERVICES IS AVAILABLE. THE TPO HAS CONSIDERED THIS COMPANY AS COMPARABLE ON ENTITY LEVEL. WE FIND THAT THERE IS A TINY RESEMBLANCE OF `MARKET AND SOCIAL RESEARCH FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY THIS COMPANY WITH THE OVERALL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL OTHER SERVICES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE AS TO HOW ALL THE ABOVE LISTED SERVICES CAN BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE RESTRICTED TO MARKET SUPPORT AS INDICATED ABOVE. 8. THE LD. DR STRENUOUSLY ARGUED THAT ALL THE ACTIVITIES DONE BY THIS COMPANY ARE BASICALLY `BUSINESS SERVICES AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO RENDERING BUSINESS SERVICES. HE SUBMITTED THAT DIFFERENTIATION OF FUNCTIONS IN THE OVERALL `BUSINESS SERVICES UMBRELLA IS TAKEN CARE OF UNDER THE TNMM. HE HARPED ON THE CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO HAVE IDENTICAL SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING COMPARISON UNDER THE TNMM. 9. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMPGREEN SALES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 533 (DEL) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE COMPARABLES ARE TO BE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF SIMILARITY EVEN UNDER TNMM. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THAT SELECTION OF COMPARABLES DOES NOT DIFFER WITH THE METHOD ADOPTED. EX CONSEQUENTI, IT IS NO MORE OPEN TO ARGUE THAT THE FUNCTIONAL DISSIMILARITY OF THE COMPANIES C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 8 UNDER THE OVERALL BROADER CATEGORY CAN BE IGNORED UNDER THE TNMM. 10. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE FUNCTIONALLY SIMILARITY OF APITCO LIMITED IS LACKING ON ENTITY LEVEL WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS SUCH, WE ORDER FOR ITS EXCLUSION FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. II. GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED 11. THE TPO INCLUDED THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES DESPITE THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND REVIEW OF PROCUREMENT PROCESSES FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE WORLD BANK. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONVINCE EVEN THE DRP FOR ITS EXCLUSION. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO FIRST DISCUSS THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. A COPY OF ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER THIS REPORT, THIS COMPANY IS PROMOTED BY EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF INDIA IN ASSOCIATION WITH LEADING INDIAN PUBLIC SECTOR AND PRIVATE SECTOR CONSULTANCY ORGANISATIONS ON THE BASIS OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MODEL THAT OFFERS COLLECTIVE INDIAN EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE THROUGH THE PROVISION OF A RANGE OF ADVISORY SERVICES WITH PARTICULAR FOCUS ON `PROCUREMENT. THIS COMPANY PROVIDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN ENHANCING QUALITY, TRANSPARENCY, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCUREMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICE TO HELP ATTAIN DESIRED INSTITUTIONAL AND CORPORATE OBJECTIVES. THE EXPERTISE OF THIS COMPANY IS AVAILABLE TO VARIOUS SECTORS C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 9 INCLUDING POWER, WATER RESOURCES, TRANSPORTATION, INDUSTRIES, ETC. ITS SERVICES HAVE BEEN OUTLINED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. FROM SUCH SERVICES RENDERED BY THIS COMPANY, IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT IT IS CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT PROCUREMENT REVIEW OF MULTILATERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS SPREAD ACROSS THE GLOBE. IT ALSO UNDERTAKES PROCUREMENT AUDITS. THIS COMPANY IS PROVIDING FULL TIME ADVICE ON PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT RELATED ASPECTS TO SEVERAL AGENCIES ACROSS THE GLOBE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN GEORGIA, IT PROVIDED ADVICE ON PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT RELATED SERVICES TO MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (MDF), REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA. IN IRAN, THIS COMPANY PROVIDED PROCUREMENT ADVISORY SERVICES TO INTERNATIONAL FORUMS, SUCH AS, BAM RECONSTRUCTION OFFICE OF MINISTRY OF HOUSING, TEHRAN. IN GUYANA, THIS COMPANY WAS SELECTED THROUGH AN INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVE PROCESS IN ASSISTING THE GOVERNMENT OF GUYANA IN STRENGTHENING OF ITS PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATION UNDER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CREDIT FROM THE WORLD BANK. IN INDIA, IT PROVIDED PROCUREMENT ADVISORY SERVICES TO IIT, BARAMATHY, PUNE, INDIA IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WORLD BANK ADMINISTERED EMPOWERING POOR: A PILOT ICT PROGRAMME FOR RURAL AREAS OF PUNE DISTRICT FUNDED BY JAPAN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANT. IT HAS ALSO CARRIED OUT REVIEW OF PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS AND ORGANISATION IN THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, PARTICULARLY, COVERING THE HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH, ENGINEERING AND WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS. WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE NATURE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THIS COMPANY, WHICH BASICALLY AIM AT PROVIDING ADVICE ON PROCUREMENT AND ALSO CARRYING OUT PROCUREMENT AUDIT, IT BECOMES PALPABLE THAT THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE MISMATCH WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY GLOBAL PROCUREMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. ARE MILES APART FROM THOSE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH, IN TURN, ARE CONFINED TO MARKET SUPPORT. BY NO STANDARD, GLOBAL PROCUREMENT C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 10 CONSULTANTS LTD., CAN BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IN ASSESSES OWN CASE. III. TSR DARASHAW LIMITED . 13. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE INCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY BY ARGUING THAT THE BUSINESS SEGMENTS OF THIS COMPANY ARE, REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER AGENT ACTIVITY; RECORDS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY; AND PAYROLL AND TRUST FUND ACTIVITY. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE TPO TREATED IT AS COMPARABLE ON ENTITY LEVEL, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 14. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS COMPANY IS A BROKING AND INVESTMENT BANKING HOUSE WITH ITS THREE SEGMENTS, NAMELY, REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER AGENT ACTIVITY (R&T); RECORDS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY (RECORDS); AND PAYROLL AND TRUST FUND ACTIVITY (PAYROLL). UNDER THE REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER AGENT ACTIVITY, THIS COMPANY UNDERTAKES REGISTRAR AND TRANSFER AGENT ACTIVITY FUNCTIONS FOR EQUITY AND PREFERENCE SHARES, DEBENTURE INSTRUMENTS AND BONDS, COMMERCIAL PAPER AND PRIVATE PLACEMENTS. IT ALSO UNDERTAKES TRANSFER PROCESSING, CUSTOMER/QUERY HANDLING AND CORRESPONDENCE, SPLIT/CONSOLIDATION/RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATES, PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF INTEREST/DIVIDEND WARRANTS, PAYMENTS BY PHYSICAL WARRANTS/THROUGH ECS/DIRECT CREDIT. UNDER RECORDS MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY, THIS COMPANY UNDERTAKES STORAGE, RETENTION & RETRIEVAL OF PHYSICAL AND/OR ELECTRONIC RECORDS. UNDER PAYROLL AND TRUST FUND ACTIVITY, THIS COMPANY HANDLES THE ACTIVITIES NORMALLY HANDLED BY PAYROLL AND RETIREMENT FUNDS C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 11 SECTION IN ANY ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING INTERFACE WITH REGULATORY AUTHORITIES. WHEN WE COMPARE ALL THE THREE BROADER ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THIS COMPANY, NAMELY, R&T, RECORDS AND PAYROLL, WITH THE MARKET SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE, ON A COST PLUS BASIS, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A HUGE FUNCTIONAL DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO. THAT APART, THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS COMPANY ON AN ENTITY LEVEL BY THE TPO HAS RENDERED THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF COMPARISON MEANINGLESS. FINDING STRIKING DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN THIS COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE, WE ORDER TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINAL SET OF COMPARABLES. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IV. QUIPPO VALUERS 15. THE TPO PROPOSED TO INCLUDE THIS COMPANY IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES WHICH WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. SUCH AN OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED BY THE TPO. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET ANY RELIEF FROM THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IS NOT AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY FOR THE NEXT YEAR IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 148 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH ALSO CONTAINS FIGURES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PRECEDING YEARS FIGURES. IT IS PALPABLE FROM SUCH REPORT THAT THIS COMPANY IS BASICALLY RENDERING ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES. FROM THE OPERATIONAL REVIEW GIVEN IN THE DIRECTORS REPORT, IT IS OVERT THAT THIS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN SALE OF CONSTRUCTION AND EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENTS THROUGH AUCTIONS AND ALSO BY MEANS OF INNOVATIVE DISPOSAL METHODOLOGIES; EXECUTION OF LIVE AUCTIONS FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE COUNTRY; AND C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 12 PROVISION OF VALUATION SERVICES TO A NUMBER OF CLIENTS IN RESPECT OF ASSETS INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, BARGES AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAKED UP SUCH DISSIMILARITIES BEFORE THE TPO, WHO DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THIS COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS COMPANY IS MAINLY PROVIDING ASSET MANAGEMENT SERVICES OF THE NATURE DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE WITH THE MARKET SUPPORT SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT TO EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THUS, THE COMPARABLES CONTESTED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE LD. AR HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF PHILIPS MORRIS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FUNCTIONAL PROFILE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND COULD NOT DISTINGUISH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL RELATING TO THESE COMPARABLES DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE TPO/AO TO EXCLUDE THESE FOUR COMPARABLES. THUS, GROUND NO. 7 IS ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.9, THE LEARNED DR HAS AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE TPO/AO. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TPO/AO FOR VERIFYING AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. C.O. NO.217/DEL/2015 13 10. AS WE HAVE DECIDED GROUND NO.7 AND 9 OF THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE REST OF THE GROUNDS. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS.1 TO 6, 8 AND 10 OF THE CROSS-OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.10.2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S GECAS SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD., 401-402, 4 TH FLOOR, AGGARWAL MILLENNIUM TOWER, NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, WAZIRPUR, NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), ROOM NO.334A, C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI 110 002. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR