KITARA CAPITAL P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 6(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 796/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4540 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AZHAR ZAIN V
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 144C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH K, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) M/S. KITARA CAPITAL PVT. LTD. 507, 5 TH FLOOR, CEEJAY HOUSE, SHIVSAGAR ESTATE,DR.A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN:AACCH 2339E ... ... APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(3)(4), ROOM NO.524, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. ..... RESPONDENT ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(3)(4), ROOM NO.524, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. ... APPELLANT VS. M/S. KITARA CAPITAL PVT. LTD. 507, 5 TH FLOOR, CEEJAY HOUSE, SHIVSAGAR ESTATE,DR.A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN:AACCH 2339E .. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY R. SINGH REVENUE BY : S/ SHRI AZHAR ZAIN V.P/ANAND MOHAN DATE OF HEARING : 03/12/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/02/2020 2 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENU E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25/01/2016 PASSE D UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHO RT THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PROVISION OF INVESTMENT ADVIS ORY SERVICES TO ITS GROUP COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY OF KITARA C APITAL INVESTMENTS LTD. BASED IN CAYMAN ISLANDS WHICH IN TURN IS HELD BY HELCON C APITAL HOLDINGS CO. SAOC OMAN. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WI TH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE(AE) IN PROVIDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SE RVICES. TO BENCHMARK ITS TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEE SELECTED TNMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED OP/OC AS ITS PLI. THE ASSESSEE SELECTED SIX COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES WITHIN AVERAGE WEIGHTED MARGIN OF -0.19 %. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE IS 17. 50%, I.E. HIGHER THAN THE MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES, ITS TRANSACTIONS WITH AE MAY BE TREATED AT ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER(TPO) RE JECTED ALL THE SIX COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INTRODUCED TWO FRESH C OMPARABLES I.E:- (1) MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORY PVT.LTD, (2) LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD. THE AVERAGE OP/TC OF THE ABOVE SELECTED COMPARABLES WAS COMPUTED AT 72.16% AGAINST THE PLI OF ASSESSEE AT 17.50%. C ONSEQUENTLY, THE TPO MADE 3 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,20,66,940/-. ON THE BASIS OF AD JUSTMENT PROPOSED BY TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02/03/2015 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL(DRP) ASSAILING THE FINDIN GS OF TPO/ASSESSING OFFICER . THE DRP AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORY PVT.LTD, (I N SHORT MOTILAL) IS ENGAGED IN THE MERCHANT BANKING ACTIVITIES AND HENCE, NOT C OMPARABLE. THE DRP DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF MOTITAL FROM THE LIST OF CO MPARABLES. HOWEVER, THE DRP RETAINED LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD ( IN SHORT LADDERUP) AS GOOD COMPARABLE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAS IMPUGNED INCLUSIO N OF LADDERUP AS COMPARABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVENUE IN ITS A PPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF DRP IN EXCLUDING MOTILAL FROM THE LI ST OF COMPARABLES. 4. SHRI AJAY R. SINGH, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING N ON-BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES TO ITS CLIENTS BASED ON RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY IT. IN LIEU OF SERVICES PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE CHARGE NOMINAL FEE. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINT ED THAT THE TPO COULD NOT APPRECIATE BUSINESS MODEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN RIGH T PERSPECTIVE AND MIXED IT WITH THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY MERCHANT /INVES TMENT BANKING BUSINESS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE TPO REJECTED ALL THE 6 COMPARABL ES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REPLACED THE COMPARABLES ENGAGED IN MERCHANT BANKING/INVESTMENT BANKING ACTIVITIES. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A FACT SHEET EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES C ARRIED OUT UNDER INVESTMENT ADVISORY BUSINESS I.E ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND INVESTMENT 4 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) BANKING/MERCHANT BANKING BUSINESS. THE RELEVANT EXT RACT OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- INVESTMENT ADVISORY BUSINESS INVESTMENT BANKING /M ERCHANT BANKING BUSINESS. INVESTMENT ADVISORY BUSINESS, INVESTMENT ADVICE IS GIVEN TO THE CLIENT, BASED ON RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS IN EXCHANGE OF A NOMINAL FEE. THIS ADVICE IS PROVIDED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE WHETHER ITS CLIENT WISHES TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OR NOT I.E. NON BINDING. IN MERCHANT BANKING/INVESTMENT BANKING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED OUT FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT IN ORDER TO HELP ITS FUND RAISING ACTIVITIES. IN THIS BUSINESS, REVENUES ARE EARNED AS PERCENTAGE OF MONEY RAISED FOR ITS CLIENTS. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES AND MERCHANT B ANKING SERVICES IS THAT IN THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES REMUNERATION IS BY WAY OF FIXED NOMINAL FEE. IN THE CASE OF MERCHANT BANKING SERVICES THE REMUNERATION IS COMMISSION BASED. 4.1 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF DRP QUA EXCLUSION OF MOTILAL FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDI A ADVISORS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.7367/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 DECIDED ON 07/02/2014 HAS HELD THAT MOTILAL IS NOT GOOD COMP ARABLE WITH A COMPANY ENGAGED IN INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. THE TRIBU NAL THEREAFTER, IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN I TA NO2410/MUM/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DECIDED ON 20/11/2018 REIT ERATED ITS VIEW BY PLACING RELIANCE ON ITS EARLIER DECISION RENDERED FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE DRP DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF MOTILAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD., ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 (SUPRA). 5 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) 4.2 IN RESPECT OF LADDERUP, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP WHILE UPHOLDING INCLUSION OF SAID COMPANY THE LIST OF COMPARABLES HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THA T THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED INCOME FROM MERCHANT BANKI NG ACTIVITIES. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. GENERAL ATLANTIC PVT. LTD. REPORTE D AS 91 TAXAMANN.COM 406(MUM-TRIB) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 HAS HELD THAT LADDERUP BEING CATEGORY ONE MERCHANT BANKING COMPANY CANNOT BE COM PARED WITH A COMPANY ENGAGED IN INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. SIMILAR V IEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUN-ARES INDIA REAL ESTAT E PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.621/MUM/16 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DECIDED ON 09/02/2018 (MUM- TRIB). THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD ., ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12(SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF LADD ERUP HOLDING THAT IT IS NOT COMPARABLE TO A COMPANY ENGAGED IN RENDERING NON- BANKING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. 5. PER CONTRA, SHRI AZHAR ZAIN, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT MOTILAL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF COMPAR ABLES AS THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE SAID COMPANY ARE AKIN TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF LADDERUP, THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT N O MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE SAID COMPAN Y EARNED INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD FROM MERCHANT BANKING ACTIVITIES. THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED FOR MODIFYING THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP TO INCLUDE MOTILAL IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. 6 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDE S AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IS EXCLUSION/INCLUSION OF COMPARABLES. THE TPO HAS REJECTED ALL THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSES SEE AND HAS INTRODUCED FRESH TWO COMPARABLES I.E. MOTILAL AND LADDERUP. THE DRP HAS DIRECTED TO REMOVE MOTILAL FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES AND HAS UPHELD INCLUSI ON OF LADDERUP. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL IS SEEKING EXCLUSION OF LADDERU P FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES AND THE REVENUE IN CROSS APPEAL WANTS INCLUSION OF MOTILAL. LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. LTD. 7. THE DRP HAS UPHELD INCLUSION OF LADDERUP MER ELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAS NOT REPORTED SEGMENT WISE BREA KUP OF INCOME AND NO INCOME HAS BEEN REPORTED FROM MERCHANT BANKING AD VISORY ACTIVITIES. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUN-ARES REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) HAS DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF LADDERUP IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AS IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ENTITY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING NON-BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. THE RELE VANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE ARE AS UNDER:- 4.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DECISIONS CITED BY RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES FOR EXCLUSION / INCLUSION OF THE COMPARABLE. FIRST OF ALL, BOTH SIDES CONVERGE ON THE POINT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDIN G INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES OF NON-BINDING IN NATURE. THE FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON THIS BACKDROP, WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE SELECTION OF FINAL COMPARABLE NAMELY LADDERUP IS CONCERNED, THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF TEMASEK HOLDING ADVISORS INDIA P. LTD. VS. DCIT [87 TAXMANN.COM 168] FOR IDENTICAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OBSERVED THAT LADDERUP WA S REGISTERED AS CATEGORY-1 MERCHANT BANKER WITH SEBI AND WAS ENGAGE D IN RENDERING MERCHANT BANKING SERVICES W.E.F. 01/07/2010 WHICH F ACT WAS DULY SUBSTANTIATED BY THE WEBSITE OF THE COMPANY AS WELL AS ITS ANNUAL REPORTS AND THEREFORE, NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH AN ENTITY WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING NON-BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. THE 7 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) RATIO OF THIS DECISION HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN FOLLOW ED IN RECENT DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN WELLS FARGO REAL ESTATE ADVISO RS PRIVATE LTD. VS DCIT [ITA NO. 1520/M/2016 17/01/2018]. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE RELIANCE OF THE REVENUE ON THE CASE OF AGM INDIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD. VS DCIT [SUPRA] WAS MISPLACED SINCE NO FINDINGS REGARDING THIS COMPARABLE HAS BEE N GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT ORDER SINCE THE ASSESSEE CAME WITHIN THE RANGE OF +/-5% EVEN WITH INCLUSION OF THIS COMPARABLE. THEREFORE, FINDING ID ENTICAL FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECED ENT, WE DIRECT EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPARABLE FROM FINAL ANALYSIS. 7.1 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FO R EXCLUSION OF LADDERUP IN THE CASE OF GENERAL ATLANTIC PVT. LTD.(SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER:- 16. INSOFAR AS LADDERUP CORPORATE ADVISORY PVT. L TD. IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE COMPARABILITY OF THIS COMPANY TO A N INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICE PROVIDER CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN TEMASEK HOLDING ADVISORS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). THE BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE PARTIES HAVING FOUND THAT THE COMPANY IS REGISTERED AS A CA TEGORY1 MERCHANT BANKING COMPANY WITH SEBI AND IS ENGAGED I N MERCHANT BANKING SERVICE W.E.F. JULY 2010 HELD THAT THE COMP ANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE TO NONBINDING INVESTMENTS AD VISORY PROVIDER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH, WE EXCLUDE THIS COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COM PARABLES. 8. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNA L EXCLUDING LADDERUP FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES E NGAGED IN NON-BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER /TPO TO EXCLUDE THE SAID COMPANY FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES BEING FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALL OWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN ITS APPEAL. 8 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS PVT.LTD. 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT MOTILAL IS ENGAGED IN MERCHANT BANKING ADVISORY SERVICES, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING NON- BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES. IN SO FAR AS NATURE OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE , THE REVENUE IS NOT IN DISPUTE . THE DRP HAS EXCLUDED MOTILAL FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES BY PLACING REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CARLYLE INDIA ADVISORS (P) LTD.(SUPRA) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 HAS DIRECTED EXCLUSION OF MOTILAL, FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. GENERAL ATLANTIC (P) LTD., THE TRIBUNAL HA S HELD THAT MOTITAL CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLES TO AN INVESTMENT ADVISORY SE RVICE PROVIDER. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL REA DS AS UNDER:- 17. AS FAR AS MOTILAL OSWAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD . IS CONCERNED, DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING MUMBAI BENCHES HA VE DECIDED AGAINST INCLUDING THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE TO AN INVEST MENT ADVISORY SERVICE PROVIDER. IN FACT IN THE CASE OF AGM INDIA ADVISORY PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH IS FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXCLUDED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE FINDING THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN FOUR DIF FERENT BUSINESS VERTICALS SUCH AS EQUITY CAPITAL MARKETS, MERGER AND ACQUISIT ION, PROFIT EQUITY SYNDICATIONS AND STRUCTURE DEBTS. THE TRIBUNAL FOUN D THAT COMPANYS CORE COMPETENCE IS IN THE FIELD OF MERCHANT BANKING. CON SIDERING THE AFORESAID ASPECTS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THIS COMPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS COMPARABLE TO AN INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICE PROVIDER. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRI BUNAL, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE DRP ON THIS ISSUE. 11. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND VAR IOUS CASE LAWS REFERRED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MOTIT AL ENGAGED IN MERCHANT BANKING ADVISORY ACTIVITIES IS FUNCTIONALLY DIFF ERENT FROM THE ASSESSEE, WHOSE 9 ITA NO.796/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ITA NO.1844/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) ACTIVITIES ARE PURELY NON-BINDING INVESTMENT ADVISO RY SERVICES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL BY REVENUE. THE DIRECTION S, OF THE DRP IN EXCLUDING MOTILAL FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES ARE UPHELD A ND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 11/02/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI