IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "K"
BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SA No. 99/Mum/2015
Arising out of ITA No.923/Mum/2015
Assessment Year 2010-11,
M/s. Q India Advisors Private ACIT C-3(3)
Limited, Ayakar Bhavan M.K. Marg,
A-34, Navyug Niwas,
4th floor, 167 Vs.
Lamington Road, Mumbai -400020
Mumbai-400007
PAN :AABCC5838L
Applicant Respondent
Applicant by Shri Ajit Kumar Jain & MS.
Radhika Thakkar
Respondent by Shri Sachchidanand Dube (DR)
Date of Hearing : 13-03-2015
Date of Pronouncement : 13-03-2015
ORDER
PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.
By way of this Stay Application, the assessee seeks for
extension of stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 1,35,14,384/-.
2. Before us the learned counsel, Shri Ajit Kumar Jain and Ms.
Radhika Thakkar submitted that the demand has arisen on
account of Transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2.63 crores. The major
dispute is with regard to inclusion/exclusion of certain
comparables. The assessee company is a wholly owned subsidiary
2
SA No.99/Mum/2015
of Tiger Irons LLC and is mainly engaged in provision of non-
binding investment advixory support services to its Associated
Enterprises (AE). The Assessee had shown its net operating
margin on cost of Rs.19.70%. In the TP study, the assessee had
selected six functionally comparables companies whose arithmetic
mean was of 13.97 %. The AO rejectd the 5 companies out of the six
comparables selected by the assessee and added 3 more
comparables whose arithmetical mean were as under:-
Sr. No. Name of the Company NCP (%)
1 Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. 97.89
2 Future capital Investment Advisors Pvt. 20.35
Ltd.
3 Integrated Capital Services Ltd. 69.31
He submitted that so far as MOtilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt.
Ltd. is concerned, same is covered by series of decision of this
Tribunal that such a comparable cannot be included to benchmark
the margin on the kind of services rendered by the assessee.
Regarding other comparables he submitted that authorities below
have been inconsistent in considering the margins. If prima facie,
these 3 comparables are removed then assesseee's margin would be
arm's length. Thus, he submitted that no demand should be
enforceable.
3
SA No.99/Mum/2015
4. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that full stay should not
granted and part of the demand should be directed to be deposited
by the assessee.
5. After considering rival submissions and the prima facie facts
of the case, we are of the opinion that the assessee do has a balance
of convenience for partial stay of demand. After discussing with the
parties, we direct as under;
(a)Assessee shall pay a sum of Rs. 15 lacs out of the
outstanding demand of Rs.1,35,14,380/- and such a payment
of Rs.15 lacs should be paid on or before 31st March 2015;
(b) Subject to aforesaid payment, the balance outstanding
demand shall be stayed for the period of six months from the
date of this order or till the passing of the order in the appeal
whichever is earlier;
(c) It has been informed that the assessee's appeal is already
fixed for hearing on 26th March 2015, however on this date,
the bench is not functioning, therefore, the hearing of the
appeal will now be fixed for hearing on 31st March 2015.
6. Accordingly, Registry is directed to fix the hearing of appeal
for 31st March, 2015. Parties informed in the open court.
4
SA No.99/Mum/2015
7. In the result, the Stay Application filed by the assessee is
partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 13th March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R. BASKARAN) (AMIT SHUKLA)
[
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, dated 13-03-2015.
Patel
copy to...
1. The appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
4. The CIT- Concerned, Mumbai
5. The DR Bench, D
6. Master File
// Tue copy//
[[[[[[ BY ORDER
DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR
ITAT, MUMBAI
|
