ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 2 Since both the aforesaid appeals have been arisen out of the same order impugned by the assessee as well as the Revenue, both the appeals are being disposed off by way of consolidated order to avoid repetition of discussion.

2. Appellant, M/s. ChrysCapital Investment Advisors (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the taxpayer), by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated

30.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- XX, New Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :-

1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XX, New Delhi ("Ld. CIT(A)") under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (" the") is bad in law and on facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO / Ld. TPO has erred in accepting Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Private Limited as a comparable to the appellant.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO / Ld. TPO have erred in re-characterizing the delay in receiving the advisory fees by the appellant as deemed loan given by it to associated enterprises and making an adjustment on account of interest receivable on such delayed receipts.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO / Ld. TPO have erred in benchmarking the delay in receipt of advisory fees on the basis of prime lending rate adopted by State Bank of India. The Ld. AO/ TPO have erred in ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 3 applying an ad-hoc adjustment of 300 basis points towards risk premium on prime lending rate.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO / Ld. TPO have erred in benchmarking the delay in receipt of advisory fees without applying any of the five prescribed methods as per section 92C(1) of theand treating the method applied by Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the bonus amounting to Rs.21,636,500 paid by the appellant to its employees (who are also shareholders of the appellant) u/s 36(1)(ii) of the by holding that the same would have been payable by way of dividend. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO has ignored the fact that the ratio of bonus paid by the appellant is different from the ratio of the shareholding of the shareholders employee and thus, bonus paid cannot be disallowed u/ s 36(1)(ii) of the.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO / Ld. TPO has erred in law by ignoring several judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant including few decisions by the jurisdictional bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and High Court.

8. The above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to one another.

9. The appellant craves leave to add I withdraw or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.

3. Appellant, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue), by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 4 (Appeals)-XX, New Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the TPO to exclude M/s Keynote Corporate Service Ltd. as comparable while determining the Arms Length Price.

4. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : the taxpayer CCIAPL is into the business of providing advisory service to CMC-III, CMC-IV and CMC-V collectively called as ChrysCapital Management Company to assist them in their investment decision. Taxpayer is carrying out research work and scouting activities for its group companies to identify entrepreneurs and portfolio companies requiring assistances in the form of capital inclusion, strategic directions and financial advice. ChrysCapital Management Company are asset management companies for investment funds who generally focused on investment in incubation ventures. These investment funds concentrate on providing funds to entrepreneurs engaged in the business of providing software services, outsourcing services and technology out of India.

5. The taxpayer, during the year under assessment, entered into international transactions as under :- ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 5 S.No. Description of transaction Value Method 1 Advisory services to CMC-III 66096485 TNMM 2 Advisory services to CMC-IV 198271750 TNMM 3 Advisory services to CMC-V 396552766 TNMM 4 Reimbursement of expenses by CMC-II 94886 No separate analysis has been done 5 Reimbursement of expenses by CMC-III 1203148 No separate analysis has been done 6 Reimbursement of expenses by CMC-IV 3971904 No separate analysis has been done 7 Reimbursement of expenses by CMC-V 26861433 No separate analysis has been done

6. Taxpayer in its transfer pricing study chosen 5 comparables by using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking its international transactions having margin of 4.21% as against Operating margin of the tested party viz. taxpayer as 6.28% and found its international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) at arms length price.

7. However, ld. TPO rejected 3 comparables out of 5 comparables taken by the assessee and introduced 5 new ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 6 comparables and worked out its average margin at 36.37% and proposed an adjustment of Rs.64,31,754/- to bring the transactions at arms length price.

8. Taxpayer carried the matter by way of filing appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved, taxpayer as well as Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of challenging the impugned order passed by ld. CIT (A) by filing aforesaid cross appeals.

9. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO.4294/DEL/2014) GROUND NO.1

10. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. GROUND NO.2

11. Ld. AR for the assessee in order to compress his arguments sought exclusion of only one comparable out of seven comparables taken by the TPO and retained by ld. CIT (A) viz. Motilal Oswal ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 7 Investment Advisors Pvt. Limited having margin of 74.48%. The ld. AR for the assessee to support his arguments contended inter alia that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Limited is not a suitable comparable on the grounds inter alia that it has ended into substantial Related Party Transactions (RPT) to the tune of 36.74%; that in order to determine substantial RPT sales should be compared with sales and expenses whereas TPO while calculating percentage of RPT used sales as well as expenditure collectively as a percent of sale and relied upon M/s. American Express (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT 2012-TII-75-ITAT-DEL-TP and SunGard Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DDIT (2014) 51 taxmann.com 339 (Pune Trib.).

12. TPO in order to select a suitable comparable adopted filters / criteria as under :- Companies whose data is not available for the FY 2008-09 are excluded. Companies whose sales < Rs.5cr. are excluded. Companies whose revenue from Services is less than 75% of the total operating revenues are excluded. Companies having more than 25% related party transactions (sales as well as expenditure combined) of the sales are excluded. Companies who have diminishing revenues/persistent losses for the last three years up to and including FY 2008-09 are excluded. ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 8 Companies having different financial year ending (i.e. not March 31, 2009) or data of the company does not fall within 12 month period i.e.

01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 are rejected. Companies that are functionally different form the taxpayer are excluded. Companies that are having peculiar economic circumstances are excluded.

13. When we examine bullet point no.4 reproduced above, the TPO has himself adopted the filter to exclude companies having more than 25% related party transactions (sales as well as expenditure combined) of the sales. When we apply this filter to Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Limited selected as a comparable by the TPO which has transaction of 36.74% of the total expenses incurred with related parties. The TPO while benchmarking the international transactions changed the denominator while examining the related party transactions.

14. Identical issue has come up before the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case cited as SunGard Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. DDIT (International Taxation-I) (2014) 51 taxmann.com 339 (Pune Trib.) which was decided in favour of the assessee and operative part thereof is reproduced as under :-

8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on this aspect and we are unable to uphold the stand of the Revenue. The discussion made by theA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 9 TPO in para 6.5.2 of his order on the impugned issue shows that he has considered a filter 25% of the RPTs for the purpose of excluding a concern from the list of comparables. While applying the said filter in the case of Compucon Software Ltd. he has aggregated the receipts for services rendered and the payments made for services received and thereafter he has divided the total figure by the total turnover of the assessee. Quite clearly, the numerator considered by the TPO comprises of receipts for services rendered as also the payments made for services received meaning thereby that sales as well as expenses having a component of RPTs are included, whereas the denominator comprised of only the sales component. Ostensibly, the aforesaid formula would give a distorted picture of the ratio of RPTs to the total transactions. If total expenses incurred by the assessee by way of payments to associated enterprises is divided by the total expenses incurred, the ratio of RPTs to the total transactions exceed 25%, as per the working made by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid incorrect approach of the TPO in order to calculate the level of RPTs, Compucon Software Ltd. has been wrongly included as a comparable. Moreover, the assessee has also referred to a decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bindview India (P) LId. v. Dy. C IT [013] 34 taxmann.com 164/145 ITO 436 relating to the assessment year 2006-07 wherein the RPTs in the case of Compucon Software Ltd. have been accepted as being in excess of 25% of the total transactions. On this basis also, we find that the plea of the assessee to exclude Compucon Software Ltd. from the list of com parables has been wrongly negated by the lower authorities. We order accordingly and assessee succeeds on this aspect.

15. Following the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case SunGard Solutions (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the fact that when the TPO has himself adopted the filter of ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 10 25% of RPT for the purpose of excluding a company from the list of comparables, he cannot arrive at a logical computation for benchmarking the international transaction by selecting a comparable having 36.74% of its total expenses with related parties. So, we are of the considered view that Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Limited is not a suitable comparable, hence ordered to be excluded. GROUNDS NO.3, 4 & 5

16. TPO has recharacterised the delay in receiving the advisory fee by the taxpayer as loan given by it to its AE and made an adjustment of RS.11,28,585/- on account of interest receivable on such delayed receipts. Ld. CIT (A) by applying the decision rendered by the Tribunal in case of Cheil India Private Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No.1230/Del/2014 for AY 2009-10 upheld the addition made by the AO and also on the ground that the assessee was entitled to receive the advisory fees in advance from its AE.

17. However, the ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order contended that the AO/CIT (A) have made incorrect recharacterisation of the transaction and relied upon in cases of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 2008-TIOL-439-ITAT-ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 11 DEL, CIT vs. EKL Appliances (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi) and Nimbus Communications Ltd. vs. ACIT ITA No.6597/Mum/09.

18. Undisputedly, there is 4 5 days delay in receiving the amounts. It is also not in dispute that in most of the cases, advance fee has been taken by the taxpayer as per agreement and an amount of Rs.1.13 lakhs was delayed.

19. AO made an adjustment qua the delayed receipt of advisory fees on the basis of prime lending rate adopted by State Bank of India by applying an ad hoc adjustment of 300 basis point towards risk from time to time on PLR. The ld. AR for the assessee to cut short his arguments contended that in these circumstances, LIBOR is applicable instead of PLR.

20. Issue as to whether LIBOR or PLR rate are applicable in such cases was decided by the Honble High Court in case cited as CIT-I vs. Cotton Natural (I) (P.) Ltd. (2015) 55 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi) by returning following findings :- 39. The question whether the interest rate prevailing in India should be applied, for the lender was an Indian company/assessee, or the lending rate prevalent in the United States should be applied, for the borrower was a resident and an assessee of the said country, in our considered opinion, must be answered by adopting and applying a commonsensical and pragmatic reasoning. We have no hesitation in holding that the interest rate should be the market determined interest rate applicable to ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 12 the currency concerned in which the loan has to be repaid. Interest rates should not be computed on the basis of interest payable on the currency or legal tender of the place or the country of residence of either party. Interest rates applicable to loans and deposits in the national currency of the borrower or the lender would vary and are dependent upon the fiscal policy of the Central bank, mandate of the Government and several other parameters. Interest rates payable on currency specific loans/ deposits are significantly universal and globally applicable. The currency in which the loan is to be re-paid normally determines the rate of return on the money lent, i.e. the rate of interest. Klaus Vogel on Double Taxation Conventions (Third Edition) under Article 11 in paragraph 115 states as under:-

The existing differences in the levels of interest rates do not depend on any place but rather on the currency concerned. The rate of interest on a US $ loan is the same in New York as in Frankfurt-at least within the framework of free capital markets (subject to the arbitrage). In regard to the question as to whether the level of interest rates in the lenders State or that in the borrowers is decisive, therefore, primarily depends on the currency agreed upon (BFH BSt.B1. II 725 (1994), re. 1 AStG). A differentiation between debt-claims or debts in national currency and those in foreign currency is normally no use, because, for instance, a US $ loan advanced by a US lender is to him a debt- claim in national currency whereas to a German borrower it is a foreign currency debt (the situation being different, however, when an agreement in a third currency is involved). Moreover, a difference in interest levels frequently reflects no more than different expectations in regard to rates of exchange, rates of inflation and other aspects. Hence, the choice of one particular currency can be just ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 13 as reasonable as that of another, despite different levels of interest rates. An economic criterion for one party may be that it wants, if possible, to avoid exchange risks (for example, by matching the currency of the loan with that of the funds anticipated to be available for debt service), such as taking out a US $ loan if the proceeds in US $ are expected to become available (say from exports). If an exchange risk were to prove incapable of being avoided (say, by forward rate fixing), the appropriate course would be to attribute it to the economically more powerful party. But, exactly where there is no special relationship, this will frequently not be possible in dealings with such party. Consequently, it will normally not be possible to review and adjust the interest rate to the extent that such rate depends on the currency involved. Moreover, it is questionable whether such an adjustment could be based on Art. 11(6). For Art. 11(6), at least its wording, allows the authorities to eliminate hypothetically the special relationships only in regard to the level of interest rates and not in regard to other circumstances, such as the choice of currency. If such other circumstances were to be included in the review, there would be doubts as to where the line should be drawn, i.e., whether an examination should be allowed of the question of whether in the absence of a special relationship (i.e., financial power, strong position in the market, etc., of the foreign corporate group member) the borrowing company might not have completely refrained from making investment for which it borrowed the money.

40. The aforesaid methodology recommended by Klaus Vogel appeals to us and appears to be the reasonable and proper parameter to decide upon the question of applicability of interest rate. The loan in ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 14 question was given in foreign currency i.e. US $ and was also to be repaid in the same currency i.e. US $. Interest rate applicable to loans granted and to be returned in Indian Rupees would not be the relevant comparable. Even in India, interest rates on FCNR accounts maintained in foreign currency are different and dependent upon the currency in question. They are not dependent upon the PLR rate, which is applicable to loans in Indian Rupee. The PLR rate, therefore, would not be applicable and should not be applied for determining the interest rate in the extant case. PLR rates are not applicable to loans to be re-paid in foreign currency. The interest rates vary and are thus dependent on the foreign currency in which the repayment is to be made. The same principle should apply.

21. Ratio of the judgment CIT-I vs. Cotton Natural (I) (P.) Ltd. (supra)

that PLR rate as applied by TPO/CIT (A) are not applicable for determining interest rate rather LIBOR should be applied to compute the interest on the delayed payment of Rs.1.13 lakhs.

So, in these circumstances, grounds no.3, 4 & 5 are determined in favour of the assessee. GROUND NO.6

22. AO disallowed an amount of Rs.2,16,36,500/- paid on account of bonus by the taxpayer to its Managing Director and Director, namely, Shri Ashish Dhawan and Shri Kunal Shroff respectively who were also shareholder of the assessee in the ratio of 2 : 1 u/s 36(1)(ii) of the. ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 15

23. However, the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessees own case for AY 2006-07 (supra) decided the identical issue as to making payment of bonus to Shri Ashish Dhawan and Shri Kunal Shroff aforesaid in favour of the assessee by following decision of Honble Delhi High Court in ITA 417/2004 dated 27.04.2015.

24. For ready perusal, findings returned by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessees own case for AY 2006-07 (supra) are reproduced as under :- 41. Now, we come to the grounds relating to corporate issues. The assessee has primarily pressed ground nos. 10 and 11 in this regard. Brief facts of the case qua ground no.10 are that during the year under consideration, the assessee company had paid salary and other allowances to its directors. The payment also included bonus to its Managing Director and Directors namely Sri. Ashish Dhawan and Sri. Kunal Shroff at Rs.1,89,75,000/- and 1,06,18,000/- who are also major shareholders in the company with 50% shareholding of each. Assessing Officer observed that as per the provision of section 36(I)(ii) bonus and/or commission paid to an employee is allowable as deduction, if and only if, it is not payable as profit or dividend. Assessing Officer pointed out that in the case of assessee company, profit of Rs.5,06,14,970/- had been declared, however, no dividend had been proposed or distributed among the shareholders which also included the directors of the company. Thus, he concluded that in case of directors of the company, the sum paid as commission and bonus could have been paid as profit or dividend which is not the case here. After considering the assessees detailed reply he made an addition of Rs. 2,95,93,000/-. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel pointed out that this issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Honble Delhi High Court in assessees own case for the assessment year 2008-09. Having heard both the parties, we find that Honble Delhi ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 16 High Court vide ITA No.417/2014 dated 27 th April, 2015, has observed as under:

The final question that arises for this Courts determination in the present appeal is the assessees claim for deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) of thein respect of the bonus paid by it to its two shareholders - Ashish Dhawan and Kunal Shroff. The lower authorities denied such claim, holding that the bonus was paid to the shareholders in lieu of dividend with the objective of avoiding tax. Such inference was drawn from two facts: a) the bonus paid was in proportion of their shareholding in the assessee company, i.e. 2:1; and b) no dividend had been declared by the assessee. However, a perusal of an excerpt from the DRPs order dated 21.09.2012 quoted by the AO in his order dated 19.10.2012 contradicts both these facts: a) bonus was not paid in the ratio of 2:1 and b) the assessee had declared interim dividend ITA 417/2014 Page 52 of ` 5,47,47,000/-. Further, the bonuses paid to the two shareholder-directors in the preceding two financial years were in the ratio of 60-65%:40-35%, even though their shareholding was 1:1. The balance sheet of the assessee placed on record also indicates that the two shareholders also hold directorial positions in the assessee. Therefore, the assessees contention that the bonus was paid to the shareholders in their managerial capacity, like in the case of other managers, cannot be questioned merely on the basis of a speculation by the revenue that such payment was to avoid tax. In such circumstances, the deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) in respect of payment of bonus to the two shareholder- directors is allowed. The assessee has relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements to support its contention. However, we do not consider it necessary to discuss those decisions for ruling in its favour. Therefore, this question is answered in favour of the assessee.

42. Respectfully following aforementioned decision, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

25. Following the aforesaid decision rendered by coordinate Bench of the Tribunal which is based on the Honble High Court judgment, we are of the considered view that the deduction u/s ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 17 36(1)(ii) in respect of payment of bonus to the aforesaid shareholder/Director who are also major shareholder in the company with 50% shareholding of each is allowable deduction as there is no change in the shareholding pattern during the year under assessment, hence ground no.6 is determined in favour of the assessee. GROUNDS NO.7 & 8

26. Grounds No.7 & 8 are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO.4287/DEL/2014) :

27. The Revenue by filing the present appeal has sought inclusion of M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. as a suitable comparable by challenging the findings of ld. CIT (A) who has excluded this company as comparable for benchmarking the international transaction.

28. M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. is selected by ld. TPO as a suitable comparable having margin of 139.00%. The ld. CIT (A) by taking into account volatile profit of the company to the tune of 145% due to the alliances formed with a Middle East based consulting companies and Swiss based consulting companies and has also launched ESOP Division which focused on designing and ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 18 implementing stock option schemes for corporate. Ld. CIT (A) also relied upon the decision rendered by DRP in assessees own case for AY 2006-07 wherein M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. is held to be not a robust comparable.

29. Ld. DR for the Revenue challenging the impugned order contended that the CIT (A) has not given proper findings on this issue. However, this contention of ld. DR is not sustainable because the ld. CIT (A) has returned comprehensive findings that profit of M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. is extremely volatile and abnormal and also not functionally comparable to the assessee. CIT (A) also relied upon DRP directions given in assessees own case for AY 2006-07 wherein M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. was found to be not a suitable comparable.

30. When we see the operating margin of M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. for the last four years, it is extremely volatile and abnormal. For ready perusal, operating margin for the last four years is reproduced as under :- Assessment Year Operating Margin 2005-06 19.38% 2006-07 94.06% 2007-08 145.83% 2008-09 191.58% 2009-10 72.43% ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 19

31. Undisputedly, business model of M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. was restructured during the year ending 31.03.2007 which is reproduced from page 8 of the annual report of 2006-07 for ready reference as under :- Business Restructuring During the year ended 31 ST March, 2007, the Scheme of Amalgamation of group companies viz Cobal Investment Company limited, West Coast Lighterage Company Private Limited, Starline Ispat and Alloys Limited, Galaxy leasing Limited, Keynote Finstock Limited, Plethora Investments Company Limited (

the transferor companies") with Keynote Corporate Services Limited (the transferee company") have been approved by Honble High Courts, at Allahabad, Bombay and Guwahati vide their orders dated 21 ST December, 2006, 9 th March 2007 and 19 th March, 2007 respectively and effected. During this financial year, in terms of the Scheme of Amalgamation 77,170 new Equity Shares were issued to the shareholders of transferor companies and 14,51,702 Equity Shares have been transferred to "Keynote Trust." All the relevant formalities/procedures relating to the said orders have been completed.

16. Pursuant to the scheme of Amalgamation between Cobal Investment Company Limited, West Coast Lighterage Company Private Limited, Starline Ispat And Alloys Limited. Galaxy Leasing Limited, Keynote Finstock Limited and Plethora Investments Company Limited (hereinafter known as Transferor companies) and Keynote Corporate Services Limited (hereinafter known as Transferee company) approved by shareholders and then approved by the Honorable High Court of Allahabad, Bombay, Guwahali vide their orders dated 21 st December, 2006, 9 th March, 2007 & 19 th March, 2007 respectively. The assets and liabilities of the Transferor companies are vested in the Transferee Company with retrospective effect from 1 st April, 2005, the appointed date under the scheme. The accounts of the Transferee Company for the period ended 31 st March, 2007 are drawn up to give effect to the scheme.

ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 20

32. Ld. DR for the Revenue contended that issue of amalgamation has not been considered by the ld. CIT (A). Only the shareholding pattern of M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. is changed with amalgamation which has not affected the profit. However, this contention is not tenable in the face of uncontroverted fact that the profit margin of assessee company has raised up to 145% during the year under assessment which is extremely volatile and abnormal and is due to the amalgamation and merger. Moreover, launch of ESOP Division which focused on designing and implementing stock option scheme for corporate, the business model of comparable company has undergone a change. So, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT (A) has rightly excluded M/s. Keynote Corporate Services Ltd. as unsuitable comparable.

32. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 19 th day of September, 2017. Sd/- sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated the 19 th day of September, 2017 TS ITA No.4294/Del./2014 ITA No.4287/Del./2014 21 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.