Latest Expert Exchange Queries

Make your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: cpt :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
 Pr CIT vs. Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
 Pr CIT Vs. PPC Business And Products Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii Vs. M/s. Radico Khaitan Ltd.
 Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. Surya Vinayak Industires Ltd.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-3 Vs. J.H. Business India Pvt. Ltd.
 CIT vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd (Delhi High Court)
 Sumana Bandyopadhyay vs. DDIT (Calcutta High Court)
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Vardhman Industries Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Bhushan Steels And Strips Ltd.
 Pr CIT vs. M/s Veer Gems (Gujarat High Court)

M/s. Q India Advisors Private Limited, A-34, Navyug Niwas, 4th floor, 167 Lamington Road, Mumbai-400007 Vs. ACIT C-3(3) Ayakar Bhavan M.K. Marg, Mumbai -400020
March, 17th 2015
                  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

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Publishing Management System PMS News Management System Publishing Management System Development Online News Management System for media company custom Publishing management system development Survey management system Market Res

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions