Case Law Details
PCIT Vs NVP Venture Capital India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
On going through the order of the ITAT it is quite clear that the findings given therein are purely based of the facts placed before it. The facts, as placed before the ITAT, have not been controverted or denied by the revenue before us. The ITAT, after considering all these factual aspects, came to a categorical finding that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in a qualitatively different and diversified business than that of the assessee which was confined to rendering only non-binding investment advisory services to its Associated Enterprise (NVP – Mauritius). In coming to its conclusion, the ITAT also relied upon another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Carlyle India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 2200/MUM/2014) dated 22nd August, 2014. In this case also the Tribunal concluded that though Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was declaring a solitary stream of operating income under the head “advisory fee”, but un-disputedly it was engaged in diversified fields and the financial results for each segment were not seperately available. Considering that it engaged in many diversified fields and not only in the field of rendering non- binding advisory services, the ITAT came to a finding that Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. was not a concern which could be included in the list of comparable companies. We do not think that these findings of fact are in any way perverse or vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record which, in turn, would give rise to any substantial question of law. We are in full agreement with the findings given by the ITAT. In fact, looking to the facts as narrated by the ITAT in the impugned order, we would have no hesitation in holding that by comparing Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee company (for the purposes of determining the ALP) would be like comparing apples and oranges. This being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ITAT excluding Motilal Oswal Investments Advisory Pvt. Ltd. from the final list of comparables which would give rise to any substantial question of law.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not give rise to any substantial question of law which would require our consideration as the matter solely revolves around factual matters. Having found that the findings given thereon by the ITAT are certainly plausible and possible, no interference is called for by us under section 260A of the I. T. Act, 1961. In these circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. By this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the “I. T. Act,1961”), the revenue takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 30th April, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – “K” Bench, Mumbai ( for short the “ITAT”), in so far as the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer (for short the “A.O.”) to recompute the adjustment of the Arm’s Length Price (for short “ALP”) in respect of the Investment Advisory Services rendered by the assessee to its Associated Enterprise. In a nutshell, the ITAT has directed that the ALP ought to be recomputed after excluding one of the comparable companies (for arriving at the ALP), namely, Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. This was done by the ITAT in view of the fact that according to it, Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. was engaged in a qualitatively different and diversified business from that of the assessee which was confined only to rendering non-binding investment advisory services to its Associated Enterprise.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
