1 17 ITXA 1832-2017.doc Sequeira IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1832 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai. Appellant Vs M/s Blackstone Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Mr.Sham Walve, for Appellant. Mr.Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Divesh Chawla i/b Mr.Atul Jasani, for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.S.KARNIK , JJ. Date : 17 January 2020. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for parties. 2. This Appeal relates to Assessment Year 2009-10. 3. Appellant-revenue has framed following questions as substantial questions of law : (A) Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, Tribunal was justified, in directing not to consider case of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as comparable, when same was within terms of Rule 10B(2)? 2 17 ITXA 1832-2017.doc (B) Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, Tribunal was justified, in directing not to consider case of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as comparable, when it s P & L showed operational income from advisory fees, same as gthat of assessee and instead to place reliance on Director s report which had categorized activities engaged by said company as Equity Capital Markets, Mergers & acquisitions, Private Equity syndication and structured debt, would not make such reliance against ambit of Rule 10B(2) ? (C) Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, Tribunal was justified, in directing not to consider case of Brescon Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as comparable, when same was within terms of Rule 10B(2)? (D) Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, Tribunal was justified, in directing not to consider case of Brescon Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as comparable, when equity related advisory is also part of its activities and not just Merchant Banking activities and that all these activities fall in overall ambit of Investment advisory and therefore within ambit of Rule 10B(2) ? (E) Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, Tribunal was justified, in directing to consider case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as comparable, when same was not within terms of Rule 10B(2) ? (F) Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, Tribunal was justified, in directing to consider case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. 3 17 ITXA 1832-2017.doc by stating that this company s core competence is mainly advisory services, when revenue generation by this company is from consultancy, which being vastly different from investment advisory services, would warrant exclusion in terms of Rules 19B(2)? 4. learned Counsel for parties brought our attention to observations of Tribunal in impugned order where Tribunal has referred to its decision for Assessment Year 2008-09 and has followed same noting that there is no change in facts. This has also been mentioned in appeal memo by Appellant. order dated 11 March 2019 in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09 passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.8 of 2017 is placed before us. It is common ground that by this order all questions of law that have been raised in this Appeal stand answered against Appellant-revenue by this order. We are informed that Special Leave Petition challenging order dated 11 March 2019 is also dismissed. 5. In circumstances, substantial questions of law having already been answered against Appellant, Appeal is dismissed. M.S.KARNIK, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J. Digitally signed by Maria Maria Luiza Luiza Sequeira Date: 2020.01.22 Sequeira 12:02:15 +0530 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Mumbai v. Blackstone Advisors India Pvt. Ltd