Facts of the Case

The assessee company was engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory services to its Associated Enterprise situated in the United States under a sub-advisory agreement. The remuneration structure was on a cost plus 20% markup basis.

The assessee filed its return declaring income for AY 2009-10 and benchmarked its international transactions by selecting eight comparables under TNMM, showing its margin higher than the average comparable margin.

The Transfer Pricing Officer rejected the assessee’s comparables and introduced ten new comparables, leading to an upward transfer pricing adjustment. The TPO also added notional interest on outstanding receivables by treating them as an international transaction.

The Dispute Resolution Panel upheld the TPO’s adjustments. On appeal, the ITAT partly allowed relief but retained three disputed comparables and upheld the principle that outstanding receivables constituted an international transaction. The assessee challenged the ITAT order before the Delhi High Court.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the ITAT was justified in re-characterizing the assessee’s functions as merchant banking instead of investment advisory services?
  2. Whether the inclusion of certain comparables was legally sustainable considering functional dissimilarity?
  3. Whether outstanding receivables automatically constitute an international transaction warranting notional interest adjustment?

 

Petitioner’s Arguments (Assessee’s Arguments)

  • The assessee contended that it merely provided advisory and research support and was not engaged in merchant banking activities.
  • It argued that merchant bankers undertake active execution, financing, underwriting, IPO management, and restructuring, whereas the assessee’s role was only advisory.
  • The comparables selected by the TPO and retained by ITAT were functionally different because they performed execution-oriented financial services.
  • Segmental data was unavailable for isolating advisory functions of such comparables.
  • Outstanding receivables were already factored into working capital adjustments, and separate notional interest adjustment would amount to duplication.

 

Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue’s Arguments)

  • The Revenue argued that TNMM allows broader flexibility in selecting comparables.
  • It contended that advisory and consultancy segments of merchant banking overlap with the assessee’s services.
  • The ITAT had conducted detailed examination and exercised discretion judiciously.
  • Outstanding receivables from AE constituted an international transaction, and interest adjustment was justified.

 

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the assessee and held:

1. Assessee not a Merchant Banker

The Court held that the assessee’s activities could not be characterized as merchant banking merely because there was some overlap in advisory functions.

There is a clear distinction between:

  • Giving advice on investment transactions; and
  • Actually executing those transactions.

This distinction is material for transfer pricing comparability.

2. Incorrect Comparable Selection

The Court held that the ITAT erred in retaining:

  • Sumedha Fiscal Services Ltd.
  • Brescon Advisors Ltd.
  • Ladderup Corporation Ltd.

because the functional similarity analysis was superficial and based on broad terminology rather than actual functional comparability.

3. Outstanding Receivables Not Automatically International Transaction

The Court held that merely because receivables remain outstanding, they cannot automatically be treated as an international transaction.

A detailed factual examination is required.

Final Order

  • Appeal allowed
  • ITAT findings on comparables set aside
  • Matter remanded to CIT(A) for fresh determination of ALP
  • Receivables issue remanded for fresh examination

 

 Important Clarification

This judgment clarifies that:

  • Broad functional similarity is insufficient under TNMM.
  • Functional comparability must be strict and based on actual business activities.
  • Advisory services cannot be equated with execution services merely because similar business terms appear in annual reports.
  • Outstanding receivables require factual analysis before transfer pricing adjustment. 

    Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2017:DHC:5577-DB/PMS18092017ITA3502016.pdf

     

    Disclaimer

    This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.