BLACKSTONE ADVISORS INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1582/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8877 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Transfer pricing
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -KBENCH MUMBAI , ,, , , , , , , ,, , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAKTIJIT DEY,JUDICIAL MEMBER / ITA NO.1582/MUM/2014 : /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 M/S. BLACKSTONE ADVISORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,5 TH FLOOR, EXPRESS TOWERS, NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI-400 021. PAN:AACCB 7376 D VS. DCIT-2(1)(1) CIRCLE-6(1), ROOM NO.506, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, CHURCHGATE MUMBAI-400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) REV ENUE BY: SHRI N.K. CHAND -CIT ASS ESSEE BY: S/SHRI PORUS KAKA & DIVESH CHAWLA / DATE OF HEARING: 18.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.01.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 15.1.14 OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER (A.O.) COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE D RP- DATED 18.12.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED I N INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.09,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3.21 CRORES.THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE C OMPANY WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING GROUNDS NO.14 TO 17.HENCE,SAME STAND DISMISSED AS N OT PRESSED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTION (IT.S)ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE ,WERE REFERRED BY THE AO TO THE TRA NSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO)FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS-LENGTH-PRICE (ALP).AFTER RECE IVING THE ORDER OF THE TPO,THE AO MADE AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 14.60 CRORES IN DRAFT O RDER.THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS OBJECTION BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL(DRP).HOWEVER,TH E DRP UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO/ TPO.AS A RESULT THE AO COMPLET -ED THE ASSESSMENT,D ETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.17.81 CRORES. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL(GOA-1TO13)IS ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENT MADE WITH REGARD TO ALP OF THE IT.S.DURING THE TP PROCEEDINGS,THE TPO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RENDERING ADVISORY SERVICES TO PRIVATE FIRMS AND REAL ESTATE FIRMS,THAT IT HAD USED TNMM FOR BENCH - MARKING IT.S AND HAD APPLIED NET COST PLUS AS PROFI T LEVEL INDICTOR (PLI)SEPARATELY,THAT NET COST PLUS MARGIN OF PE FUNDS SERVICES WAS SHOWN AT 8.01%, AND THAT OF RE FUND WAS SHOWN AT 20.55%, THAT THE MEAN PLI OF THE COMPARABLES WAS CO MPUTED AT 10%, THAT FOR DETERMINING THE MEAN PLI IT HAD USED THREE YEARS DATA OF SEVEN COMP ANIES NAMELY I.)CREDIBLE MANAGEMENT 1582/M/14-BLACKSTONE ADVISORS 2 AND CONSULTANTS,II.)CRISIL RISK AND INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS LTD.,III.)FUTURE CAPITAL ADVISORS LTD.,IV.)ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVIC ES LTD. V.)IDC INDIA LTD.,VII.)IDFC INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. AND VII.)MECLAI FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES LTD., THAT AT THE TIME OF TP STUDY FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE AY.-2009 -10 WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN CASE OF COMPANIES AT SL.NO.1 AND 7.THE TPO ACCEPTED THE TWO COMPARABLE OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY FUTURE CAPITAL ADVISORS LTD.(FCAL)AND IDFC INVESTME NT ADVISORS LTD.(IDFC)AND REJECTED THE REMAINING 5 COMPARABLES.HE FURTHER IDENTIFIED T WO MORE COMPARABLES NAMELY MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORY PVT. LTD.(MOIAPL)AND BRES CON CORPORATE ADVISORS PVT.LTD . (BCAPL).THESE COMPARABLES WERE SELECTED FROM THE AS SESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER AY. I.E.2008-09 WHEREIN THE TPO HAD SELECTED THEM.THE A SSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO INCLUSION OF MOIAPL AND BCAPL.AFTER DEALING WITH TH E OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ,THE TPO SELECTED FOUR COMPARABLES AND ON THE BASIS OF SINGL E-YEAR-DATA MEAN PLI WAS DETERMINED AT 55. 38%.APPLYING THE SAME,HE SUGGESTED UPWARD-ADJUS TMENT OF RS.14,60,07,783/- FOR THE ITS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TPO AND DRAFT ORDER O F THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFORE THE DRP.IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE TPO HAD REJEC TED THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS,THAT IT HA D SELECTED THE COMPARABLES ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS,THAT THE TWO NEW COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT.THE DRP HELD THAT IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE COMPARABLE SELECTED SHOULD BE FUNCTIONALLY COMPAR- ABLE,THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY IT SHOULD EMANATE FR OM A SEARCH PROCESS,THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE COMPARABLE WERE SELECTED IN THE AY.2008-09 OUT OF A SEARCH PROCESS,THAT FINANCIALS OF THE COMPARABLE WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT ASS ESSEE HAD FAILED TO USE THE CURRENT YEAR DATA IN RESPECT OF THE COMPARABLE SELECTED BY IT,TH AT IT WAS VIOLATION OF THE MANDATE RULE 10B(4) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962,THAT IT HAD INC ORRECTLY USED MULTIPLE YEAR DATA WITHOUT JUSTIFYING HOW SUCH EARLIER YEAR DATA HAD AN INFLUE NCE ON THE ALP,THAT TPO HAD REJECTED TWO COMPARABLE ON THE GROUND OF NON AVAILABILITY OF CON TEMPORANEOUS DATA AND THREE COMPARABLES HAD BEEN REJECTED ON GROUND OF FUNCTIONALITY,THAT H E HAD RIGHTLY REJECTED THE FIVE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE.WITH REGARD TO BCAPL THE A SSESSEE HAD ARGUED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY WERE DEBT SYNDICATION, FINANCIAL RESTRU CTURING AND CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES,THAT IT HAD ABNORMAL HIGH PROFIT,THAT THE TPO HAD TAKEN PLI OF BCAPL OF 169.75% AS AGAINST THE CORRECT VALUE OF 116.17%. AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AO,THE DRP HELD HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE P&L ACCOUNT OF MOIAPL FOR THE YEAR IT WAS FOUND THAT IT HAD DERIVED INCOME FROM ADVISORY FEES 1582/M/14-BLACKSTONE ADVISORS 3 AND NOT FROM ANY ACTIVITY OF MERCHANT BANKING,THAT THE RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION (RPT) WERE LESS THAN 25%,THAT IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS THE TRIBUNA L HAD HELD THAT ON THE BASIS OF ABNORMAL PROFIT COMPARABLES SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED.ABOUT BC APL IT HELD,THE PRINCIPLE ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY WAS PROVIDING ADVISORY SERVICES,THAT IT WAS FUNCTIONALLY SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DRP REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF ABNORMAL PROFIT ALSO.T HUS,THE DRP REJECTED ALL THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE.THE AO IN PURSUANCE OF THE D IRECTION OF THE DRP,MADE AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT,AS STATED EARLIER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ARGUED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR AY.2008-09(ITA 1581/M UM/2014 DT.9.3.16),THE TRIBUNAL HAD DEALT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE.HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS (P.) LTD.(32 TAXMANN.COM 23) ;GENERAL ATLANTIC P. LTD. (68 TAXMANN. COM 88)WITH REGARD TO INCLUSION OF MOIAPL AS COMPAR ABLE.HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT BCAPL WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AN INVALID COMPARABLE BY THE T RIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR AY.2008-09.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE DRP STATED THAT MOIAPL WAS A GOOD COMAPARABLE, THAT IT WAS IN ADVISORY SERVICES,THAT BCAPL WAS PROVIDING ADVISORY SERVICES,THAT COMPARABLES SELECT ED BY THE TPO FOR THE LAST AY.FOR WERE GOOD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WHILE DECIDING THE AP PEAL FOR THE AY.2008.09.WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER AND IT READS AS UNDER:- 13.WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, PERUSED IMPUGNED ORDER AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS RENDERIN G SUB-ADVISORY SERVICES FOR IDENTIFYING THE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO BE DONE BY THE AE IN IN DIA FOR WHICH IT IS REMUNERATED WITH COST PLUS MARKUP.SUCH ADVISORY SERVICES ARE PURELY NON-B INDING. BEING RISK MITIGATED INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMPANY,THE ASSESSEE HAS BENCHMARKED ITS M ARGIN WITH THE COMPANIES INVOLVED IN INVESTMENT OR CORPORATE ADVISORY SERVICES BY ADOPTI NG TNMM METHOD AS MAM. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN MARK-UP MARGIN OF 18.44% OVER COST. IN IT S TRANSFER PRICING EXERCISE, IT HAS IDENTIFIED 8 COMPARABLE COMPANIES, OUT OF WHICH, ON LY ONE COMPARABLE COMPANY HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TPO AND 3 OF THEM HAVE BEEN CONTEND ED TO BE INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE TPO HAS REJECTED THE ENTIRE SEARCH M ATRIX OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS FINALLY SELECTED 4 COMPARABLE COMPANIES; ONE FROM THE ASSES SEES LIST AND THREE FROM HIS OWN SEARCH. OUT OF THE THREE COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE TPO FROM HIS OWN SEARCH, TWO HAVE BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF HEARING AS DISCUS SED ABOVE. REGARDING ALL THE COMPARABLES, THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL BESIDES ARGUING ON MERITS HA S POINTED OUT THAT ALL THESE COMPARABLES HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN SERIES OF DECISIONS BY THE TR IBUNAL WHILE COMPARING THEM WITH COMPANIES RENDERING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. S O FAR AS FAR ANALYSIS IS CONCERNED, SAME IS NOT IN DISPUTE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, CONFININ G OURSELVES WITH THE DISPUTE REGARDING INCLUSION/ EXCLUSION OF THE COMPARABLES AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE. MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT LTD :- 1582/M/14-BLACKSTONE ADVISORS 4 THIS COMPARABLE HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THE TPO AND WH ILE INCLUDING THE SAID COMPARABLE HE HAS OBSERVED THAT ITS INCOME IS ONLY FROM ADVISORY FEES DURING THE YEAR AND IT IS PERFORMING ADVISORY SERVICES IN VARIOUS FIELD AND INDUSTRIES I NCLUDING ADVISORY SERVICES LIKE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US,LD. CIT DR ARGUING FOR ITS INCLUSION SUBM ITTED THAT, IF THE ICRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES CAN BE INCLUDED FOR HAVING REVENUE FROM AD VISORY SERVICES THEN ON SAME ANALOGY THIS COMPANY SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN THE SAME TREATMENT. FR OM THE PERUSAL OF THE DIRECTORS REPORT, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS COMPANY DERIVES ITS BUSINESS I NCOME FROM FOUR DIFFERENT BUSINESS VERTICALS, I.E. EQUITY CAPITAL MARKETS, MERGER AND ACQUISITION S, PROFIT EQUITY SYNDICATIONS AND STRUCTURED DEBT. IT ALSO GIVE ADVISES ON CROSS BORDER ACQUISIT ION. ITS CORE COMPETENCE IS IN THE FIELD OF MERCHANT BANKING.IT ALSO PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE INV ESTMENT BANKING SOLUTIONS AND TRANSACTION EXPERTISE COVERING PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF EQUITY, DEBT AND CONVERTIBLE INSTRUMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC CAPITAL MARKETS, MONI TORING MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS AND ADVISING M&A AS PROFESSIONAL AND RESTRUCTURING ADVI SORY AND IMPLEMENTATIONS. IT IS ALSO INVOLVED IN VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE MERCHANT BANKING. A MERCHANT BANKER PROVIDES CAPITAL TO COMPANIES IN THE FORM OF SHARE OWNERSHIP INSTEAD OF LOANS. IT ALSO PROVIDES ADVISORY ON CORPORATE MATTERS TO THE COMPA NIES IN WHICH THEY INVEST. THE FOCUS IS ON NEGOTIATED PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTMENT. THE WIDE R ANGES OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, CREDIT SYNDICATION, COUNSELING ON M&A, ETC. THIS WHOLE RANGE OF FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY MOTILAL OSWAL IS DEFINITE LY ARE FAR WIDER AND MUCH DIFFERENT FROM INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES WHERE CORE FUNCTIONS I S TO GIVE ADVICE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS IN DIVERSIFIED FIELDS. A COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN MERGER AND ACQUISITIONS, PRIVATE EQUITY SYNDICATION, LOAN/CREDIT SYNDICATION AND PERFORMING MOST OF THE FUNCTION AS A MERCHANT BANKER, THEN THE ENTIRE FUNCTIONS AND TRAN SACTIONS AFFECTS THE GENERATION OF REVENUE AND MARGINS. SUCH FUNCTIONS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. MERE CLASSIFICATION OF REVENUE AS ADVISORY FEES WILL N OT PUT THE COMPANY IN A COMPARABLE BASKET SANS FUNCTIONAL SIMILARITY AND TRANSACTIONAL ANALYS IS. IN CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT, THE MERCHANT BA NKING FUNCTIONS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES AND THIS DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THUS, IN VIEW OF PLETHOR A OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS REFERRED TO BY LD. COUNSEL AND IN VIEW OF FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES A S DISCUSSED AS ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT MOTILAL OSWAL CANNOT BE PUT INTO THE COMPARABILITY LIST AND IS DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED. B) BRESCON CORPORATE ADVISORS PVT LTD :- AS STATED BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL, THIS COMPANY I S AGAIN RENDERING SERVICES OF MERCHANT BANKER AND ITS INCOME IS MAINLY FROM FINANCIAL REST RUCTURING AND RECAPITALIZATION AND DEBTS SYNDICATION. EQUITY RELATED ADVISORY AND M&A ADVISO RY SERVICES ARE ALSO IN THE CAPACITY OF A MERCHANT BANKER AND AS A CORPORATE ADVISOR COMPANY ITS MAIN FUNCTION IS TO ASSIST THE COMPANIES IN SPECIAL SITUATION THROUGH RESOLUTION, RE-CAPITALIZATION, M&M, INFUSION OF PROFIT, EQUITY OR DIRECT INVESTMENT.THUS, LIKE MOTILAL OSWA L INVESTMENT ADVISORY PVT LTD, THIS COMPANY ALSO CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH COMPANIES REND ERING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES SIMPLICITOR. THE REASONING GIVEN IN THE MOTILAL OSW AL FOR EXCLUSION WILL APPLY HERE ALSO. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL, ES PECIALLY IN THE CASE OF TAMASEK HOLDINGS ADVISORS INDIA PVT LTD (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THIS C OMPANY HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY EXCLUDED FROM BEING CONSIDERED WHILE COMPARING WITH THE COMPANIES GIVING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. ACCORDINGLY,WE DIRECT THE TPO/AO TO EXCLUDE THIS CO MPANY FROM COMPARABILITY LIST. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS IF THE FACTS OF THE AY.2008-09 ARE COMPARED WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL,EXCEPT FOR THE A MOUNTS INVOLVED.ALL THE ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE US,WERE TAKEN BY THE DR WHEN THE MATTER FOR THE AY.2008-09 WAS ARGUED.THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS DETAILED ORDER HAD HELD THAT MOIAPL AND BCAPL WERE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF THE VALID COMPARABLES.WE SEE NO REASON NOT TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF 1582/M/14-BLACKSTONE ADVISORS 5 THE EARLIER YEAR AND DIRECT THAT BOTH THE COMPARABL ES I.E.MOIAPL AND BCAPL CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES OF INVESTMENT A DVISORY SERVICES FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WE FURTHER HOLD THAT THE DRP WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN S TATING THAT COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO FOR THE EARLIER YEAR WOULD BE VALID FOR THE UND ER APPEAL ALSO,EVEN IF HE HAD NOT INITIATED A FRESH SEARCH PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING COMPARABLES. TH ERE IS NO NEED TO CITE ANY AUTHORITY TO STATE THAT EACH AND EVERY YEAR IS A SEPARATE AND INDEPEND ENT UNIT AND PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING COMPARABLES IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY.PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT AND THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES) LAY DOWN A CERTAIN PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF COMPARABLES.IT CANNOT BE DEVIATED FROM.SINGLE YEAR DATA IS GIVEN PREFERENCE OVER MULT I-YEAR DATA,AS IT GIVES MORE ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE COMPARABLES.ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRC UMSTANCES,DATA FOR EARLIER YEARS IN TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION.CLEARLY,THE SCHEME OF TP IS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF PROFITS FROM INDIA HAS BEEN FRAMED IN A MANNER THAT COMPARABLES OF PARTICULAR YEAR ARE CONSIDERED AS A NORM.BUT,SURPRISINGLY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON THE DRP ENDORSED THE STAND OF THE TPO THAT SEARCH PROCESS OF EARLIER YEAR CAN BE USED FOR CURRENT YEAR.IN OUR OPINION,THERE IS A BASIC FLAW IN THE APPROACH OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES.THE AS SESSEE IS REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE A FRESH SEARCH FOR EVERY YEAR.THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT/RULES THAT THE TPO IS EXEMPT FROM UNDERTAKING A FRESH SEARCH FOR EVERY YEAR.WE FIND T HAT ON ONE HAND THE DRP HAD UPHELD THE REJECTION OF TWO OF THE COMPARABLES ON THE GROUND T HAT DATA FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND ON THE OTHER HAND IT APPROVED THE REL IANCE PLACED BY THE TPO ON THE DATA FOR THE EARLIER YEAR.WHAT PREVENTED THE TPO TO REFER TO THE DATA OF CURRENT YEAR OF BOTH THE COMPARABLES IS BEST KNOWN TO HIM OR THE DRP.BUT,THE IR APPROACH IS SELF CONTRADICTORY. IN THE EARLIER AY.THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXCLUDED MOIALP AND BSALP FROM THE LIST OF THE COMPARABLES.IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSE E I.E. CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA);GENERAL ATLANTIC P. LTD.(SUPRA)MOIALP HAS B EEN HELD TO BE NOT A VALID COMPARABLE FOR INVESTMENT ADVISORY.RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDERS WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH JANUARY, 2017. 04 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 04.01.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1582/M/14-BLACKSTONE ADVISORS 6 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.