DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI V. ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1083/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9224 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AND CROSS OBJECTION
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1083/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009 - 10 DCIT - 2(1), ROOM NO. 561, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. VS.` M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD., VILLAR VILLE FIRST FLOOR, 16, P J RAMCHANDANI MARG, COLABA, MUMBAI 400039. APPELLANT / RESPONDEN T CROSS OBJECTION NO. 62/MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1083/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009 - 10 M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD., VILLAR VILLE FIRST FLOOR, 16, P J RAMCHANDANI MARG, COLABA, MUMBAI 400039. VS.` DCIT - 2(1), ROOM NO. 561, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP DATED 15.11.2013 U/S 144C(5) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE SOLITARY GROUNDS AS UNDER: - REVENUE BY SHRI K. SHIVARAM ASSESSEE BY SHRI. S. D. SRIVASTAVA DATE OF HEARING 10.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 .03.2015 M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 2 | P A G E ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE DRP HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS INDIA LTD . FROM THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AN APPEAL U/S 260A OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN FILED BEFOR E THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF ARISAIG PARTNERS (ASIA) PTE LTD., HEADQUARTERD IN SINGAPORE. VIDE THE SERVICED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS HOLDING COMPANY (AE), THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES RESEARCH SERVICES TO THE AE IN RELATION TO THE SUITABLE INVESTMENTS IN INDIA TO BE MADE BY THE AE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH ITS AE IN RESPECT OF PROVISIONS OF RESEARCH SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE BENCH MARKED ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ON BY ADOPTING THE TRANSACTION NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEES OPERATING MARGIN PLI OP/TC AT RS. 19.87% IS AT ARMS LENGTH IN COMPARISON TO THE MEAN AVERAGE MARGIN OF FIVE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARRIVED AT 16.14%. DURING THE COURSE OF TRANSFER PRICING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TPO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THREE COMPARABLES NAMELY ARIX CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD, AMBIT CAPITAL PVT. LTD AND CHRYSLER LTD MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE COMPARABLES BECAUSE O F SIGNIFICANT RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A FRESH SET OF FIVE COMPARABLES HAVING MEAN OPERATING MARGIN AT RS. 4.50%. THE TPO DID NOT ACCEPT THE COMPARABLES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SELECTED A SET OF NINE COMPARABLES BY USING SINGLE YEAR DA TA INSTEAD OF MULTI YEAR DATA APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO DETERMINED THE MEAN OPERATING MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES AT 34.37%. THE NINE COMPARABLES OF THE TPO INCLUDES ONE COMMON COMPARABLE NAMELY INDIAN VENTURE CAPITAL LTD. WHICH WAS M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 3 | P A G E ALSO SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO PROPOSED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING AT RS. 1,26,93,344/ - 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE TP ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED BY THE TPO/ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP DELETED THREE COMPARABLES O UT OF THE NINE TAKEN BY THE TPO. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE AGGRIEVED AND FILED THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE EXCLUSION OF KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS INDIA LTD FROM THE COMPARABLES BY THE DRP BASED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 2200/M/2014) DATED 22.08.2014. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. A R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FRESH SET OF FIVE COMPARABLES FOR BENCH MARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF PROVIDING RESEARCH SERVICE TO ITS AE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD BEING TNMM. THE REVISED COMPA RABLES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - SR. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/TC FOR FY 2008 - 09 1. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT LTD 10.90% 2. INDIAN VENTURE CAPITAL LTD. - 1145% 3. KSHITIJ INVESTMENT ADVISORY CO LTD. 27.82% 4. FUTURE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD - INVESTMENT ADVISORY SEGMENT - 25.04% 5. FUTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. 20.67% MEAN 4.50% M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 4 | P A G E 5. THE TPO REJECTED THE COMPARABLES SELECTEDBY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE COMPARABLE AT SERIAL NO. 2 NAMELY INDIAN VENTURE CAPITAL LTD AND CARRIED OUT FRESH SEARCH AND ADDED EIGHT MORE COMPARABLES FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP IN RESPECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AE. THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO ARE AS UNDER: - SL NO. PARTICULARS OP/TC 1. KLG CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED 85.22% 2. A R VENTURE FUND MANAGEMENT LIMITED 27.49% 3. KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS (INDIA) LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KJMC GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) LIMITED) 45.09% 4. MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENTS ADVISORS PVT. LTD. 82.77% 5. QUANTUM ADVISORS PVT. LTD. 10.90% 6. KSHITIJ INFORMATION ADVISORY CO. LTD. 27.82% 7. FUTURE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LTD INVESTMENT ADVISORY SEGMENT - 25.04% 8. FUTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD 20.67% 6. THUS THE TPO HAD ARRIVED AT 34.37% MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES BEING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVIDING RESEARCH SERVICES TO ITS AE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF TPO THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP DELETED THE FIRST THREE COMPARABLES AT SL. NO. 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE TPOS COMPARABLE AND ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE TWO COMPARABLES DELETED BY THE DRP NAMELY KLG CAPITAL SERVICES LTD AND AR VENTURE FUNDS MANAGEMENT LI MITED BUT CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF COMPARABLE NAMELY KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 5 | P A G E (INDIA) LIMITED. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE DRP HAS DELETED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PRIVAT E LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID ORDER HAS CONSIDERED THE COMPARABILITY OF THE KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS (INDIA) LIMITED IN PARA 10 AS UNDER: - 10. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE OTHER TWO COMPARABLES I.E., KGL AND KJMC. IN THIS REGARD, LD C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2007 - 08, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. A COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS PLACED AT PAGE 292 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. PARA 2 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT DATED 22.2.2013 IS RELEVANT HERE, WHICH INDICATED THE APPROVAL OF THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WHICH MENTIONED THAT THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THAT OF THE LIST OF COMPARABLES PICKED UP BY THE TPO WHICH INCLUDES THE SAID KGL AND KJMC. THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IS RELEVANT FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT, MERCHANT BANKING, CORPORATE FINANCE AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE COMPARED TO THE I NVESTMENT ADVISORY ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, NOTHING IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE TO COUNTER THE ABOVE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE KGL AND KJMC ARE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED F OR DETERMINATION OF THE ALP OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THIS REASONING ITSELF, THE COMPARABLE OF THE KGL AND KJMC ARE TO BE EXCLUDED AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE SAID TWO COMPARABLES TOO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO .4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IT WAS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT, MERCHANT BANKING, CORPORATE FINANCE AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WHICH CANNOT BE COMPARED TO THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY ACTIVITIES . THER E IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH THE AE IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND NO OTHER SERVICE OR ACTIVITY LIKE INVESTMENT, MERCHANT BANKING, CORPORATE FINANCE ETC. THUS THE COMPANY KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS (I NDIA) LIMITED CANNOT BE TREATED AS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 6 | P A G E 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF DRP IN DELETING THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 9. CROSS OBJECTION 62/MUM/2014 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN CROSS OBJECTION .. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL - I, MUMBAI ('LEARNED DRP') ERRED IN DIRECTING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 2(1) ('THE ASSESSING OFFICER'/ THE 'AO') TO RETAIN 'MOTILAL OSWAL I NVESTMENT ADVISOR PVT LTD' AS A COMPARABLE TO THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DRP, ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO / THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ('THE TPO') TO REJECT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR RISK AND WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENT RISK PROFILE OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR / RESPONDENT AND COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE LEARNED TPO / AO. 11. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENTS ADVISORS PVT. LTD FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL O N RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE COMPANY MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENTS ADVISORS PVT. LTD IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 7 | P A G E SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF ACUMEN FUND ADVISORY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (ITA NO. 143/MUM/2014) . 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TPO AND DRP 14. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA), HAS EXAMINED THE FUNCTIONAL COMPARABILITY OF MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENTS ADVISORS PVT. LTD IN PARA 8 AND 9 AS UNDER: - 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND RELATED SUPPORT SER VICES TO ITS PRINCIPAL CARLYLE HONG KONG. THE DISPUTE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO WHETHER (I) KLG CAPITAL SERVICES LTD (KLG); (II) KJMC CORPORATE ADVISORS (INDIA) LIMITED (KJMC) AND (III) MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD (MOIAPL) ARE FUNCTION ALLY COMPARABLE CASES OR NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING MOIAPL, ASSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2008 - 2009, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 282 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT IT IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NO.7367/MUM/2012 (AY 2008 - 2009), DATED 7.2.2014. ON PERUSAL OF PARA 12 OF THE SAID ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH CONTAINS THE OPERATIONAL PART, WE FIND THE SAME IS RELEVANT AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN ITS FINDING UNDER THE FACTS WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE MOIAPL, WHICH HAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MERCHANT BANK ING IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINING THE ALP. RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE SAID PARA 12 ARE REPRODUCED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 12. ..THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. A PERUSAL OF THREE COMPARABLES CONSIDERED BY THE TPO SHOWS THAT M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 | P A G E M/S. FUTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD., HAS O PERATING PROFIT AT 21.79% WHEREAS OPM OF MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD IS 72.33%. THE COMPARABLES USED BY THE TPO THEMSELVES ARE SHOWING EXTREME OPM. A PERUSAL OF THE DIRECTOR S REPORT OF MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD SHOWS THAT DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE SAID COMPANY HAS COMPLETED 23 ASSIGNMENTS SUCCESSFULLY AS AGAINST 14 COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. A CLOSE LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE SAID COMPANY SHOW THAT THE INCOME FROM OPERATIONS HAVE B EEN SHOWN ONLY AS ADVISORY FEES WHEREAS IT IS ADMITTEDLY AN UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN DIVERSIFIED ACTIVITIES. SEGMENTAL REPORTING IS NOT AVAILABLE. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT APPEARS TO BE ONLY OF CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS. THE SAID COM PANY IS REGISTERED WITH SEBI AS A MERCHANT BANKER AND THE DIRECTOR S REPORT SHOW THAT IT IS INTO TAKEOVER, ACQUISITIONS, DISINVESTMENTS ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DATA IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE COMPARISON. IT CAN THEREFORE, BE SAFELY SAID THAT THE SA ID COMPANY BEING INTO MERCHANT BANKING AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE AO NOT TO CONSIDER MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD AS A COMPARABLE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE MOIAPL FROM THE LIST OF THE COMPARABLES FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP OF THE SAID TRANSACTION. 15. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID COMPANY NAMELY MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MERCHANT BANKING AND, THEREF ORE, IS NOT A GOOD COMPARABLE OF A COMPANY PROVIDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES TO THE AE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THAT IN CASE OF ACUMEN FUND ADVISORY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL WHILE FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN CASE OF CARLYL E INDIA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. 16. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF CARL YLE INDIA ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA), AS WELL AS ACUMEN FUND ADVISORY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT (SUPRA) , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMPANY MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT M/S ARISAIG PARTNERS INDIA PVT. LTD. 9 | P A G E LTD IS PRIMARILY IN THE BUSINESS OF MERCHANT BAN KING AND, THEREFORE, IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING INVESTMENT ADVISORY TO ITS AE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO AND DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER/TPO TO RECOMPUTED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAINING COMPARABLES. 1 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUCNED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MARCH 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 25 .03.2015 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI