JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, Revenue for the appellant and Mr. Madhur Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee. 2. By filing this appeal under Section 260-A of the Inome Tax Act, 1961 (briefly the 'Act' hereinafter), Revenue as the appellant has assailed the common order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'K' Bench, Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) in Income Tax Appeal No.537/Mumbai/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 filed by the assessee and Income Tax (TP) No.199/Mumbai/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 filed by the Revenue. 3. The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue proposing the following questions as substantial questions of law:- I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to exclude the case of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable, basing its decision on the decision in the case of Carlyle Advisors Pvt. Ltd., in which the said comparable was not even discussed? I(a). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the exclusion of the comparable M/s. Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. holding that the same is engaged in M & A advisory services and that these activities are far wider and much different from the investment advisory services carried on by the assessee, when it has accepted in the same year, the inclusion of ICRA Management Services, which is also engaged in M & A advisory services, as a comparable? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable without appreciating the fact that the said company is engaged primarily in technical and operational consultancy across fields as against financial consultancy and hence cannot be taken as comparable to the assessee which is engaged in investment advisory services? II(a). II(a). Whether without prejudice to the ground I(a) taken above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable, based on the order in the case of Temasek Holdings for assessment year 2010-11, in which the Tribunal had clearly stated that the said company was engaged in M&A advisory services, but this does not preclude it from being taken as a comparable for investment advisory cases, while excluding Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. on the same basis? II(b). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable for investment advisory services, without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lloyd TSB Global Services P Limited for assessment year 2008-09 (ITA No.453 of 2014), in which the said comparable has been held to be a business support service comparable? III. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of IDC (India) Ltd. as a comparable, without considering the submission of Revenue recorded in para 4.1 of the impugned order that the said comparable earns business convention income apart from market research and management consultancy, but has not provided any separate segmental results for these varying income streams? III(a). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of IDC (India) Ltd. as a comparable, without considering the functional sketch of the same company given by the same Tribunal Bench in the case of Tevapharma India (P) Ltd. (18 taxmann.com 148) from which it is clear that the comparable is engaged in activities significantly different from the investment advisory functions undertaken by the assessee? III(b). III(b). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer to include the case of IDC (India) Ltd. as a comparable, ignoring the fact that the said company engages in the use of intangibles which is not done by the assessee and hence cannot be taken as a fit comparable as per the decisions in Motorolla Solutions India P Ltd. (48 taxmann.com 248), MSC Software (80 taxmann.com 55) and 24/7 Customer.Com (28 taxmann.com 258)? 4. As would be evident from the above, the first two questions relate to exclusion of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable; question numbers II to II(b) relate to inclusion of ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. as a comparable; again question numbers III to III(b) relate to inclusion of IDC (India) Ltd. as a comparable. 5. The above questions have been raised on the basis of the following factual narrative. 6. Respondent is an assessee under the Act, its status being that of a resident company. It is engaged in the business of providing non-binding investment advisory services. The assessment year under consideration is 2011-12. 7. Assessee (also referred to as the 'respondent') filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 25.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs.4,23,83,300.00. The case was selected for scrutiny whereafter various statutory notices were issued. Assessing Officer made a reference under Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of the Arm's Length Price in relation to international transactions. 8. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(1)(1), Mumbai acting as the Transfer Pricing Officer passed order dated 27.01.2015 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act. It was noticed that the assessee had entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprise to provide investment advisory services. It may be mentioned that assessee is a subsidiary of Apollo Mauritius which is a company incorporated in Mauritius. The role of the assessee is to provide non-binding investment advisory services to Apollo Mauritius, its Associated Enterprise. Assessee selected Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price and submitted a set of seven companies that were considered to be broadly comparable to the functional profile of the assessee. The role of the assessee is to provide non-binding investment advisory services to Apollo Mauritius, its Associated Enterprise. Assessee selected Transactional Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price and submitted a set of seven companies that were considered to be broadly comparable to the functional profile of the assessee. This included ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd. (briefly 'ICRA' hereinafter) and IDC India Ltd. (briefly 'IDC' hereinafter). While the assessee was asked to explain as to how these companies were functionally similar, it was also provided with a list of four companies including Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (briefly 'Motilal Oswal' hereinafter) and was asked to show cause as to why those companies should not be considered as comparables. The comparables submitted by the assessee, including ICRA and IDC, were rejected by the Transfer Pricing Officer on the ground that those companies were functionally dissimilar to that of the assessee. On the other hand, three out of the four companies suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer, including Motilal Oswal, were accepted as comparables. Thereafter the Arm's Length Price was computed. On the basis of such computation, Transfer Pricing Officer worked out a difference of Rs.8,43,43,070.00 which was treated as the transfer pricing adjustment under Section 92CA of the Act for the said assessment year. 9. Based on the above order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Offier passed a draft assessment order dated 20.03.2015 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144-C(1) of the Act adding the quantum of transfer pricing adjustment to the total income of the assessee. It was mentioned therein that if the assessee desired, it could file objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel within the stipulated period failing which final assessment order would be passed. 10. Respondent filed objection to the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai which heard both the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Regarding exclusion of ICRA as a comparable, Dispute Resolution Panel agreed with the views of the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was held that activities performed by ICRA being functionally different from the assessee it could not be considered as a good comparable. As regards IDC, the Dispute Resolution Panel also took a similar view affirming the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer. It was held that activities performed by ICRA being functionally different from the assessee it could not be considered as a good comparable. As regards IDC, the Dispute Resolution Panel also took a similar view affirming the finding of the Transfer Pricing Officer. In so far Motilal Oswal is concerned, the Dispute Resolution Panel followed earlier decisions of the Tribunal and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude Motilal Oswal from the list of comparables. Accordingly order dated 02.11.2015 was passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel directing the Assessing Offier to give effect to its directions in accordance with the provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act. 11. Following the same, Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer to give effect to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel. After order was passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer on 23.12.2015, the quantum of transfer pricing adjustment was revised to Rs.6,67,12,196.00 which was added to the income of the assessee by the Assessing Officer vide the final order of assessment dated 30.12.2015. 12. Against the aforesaid order, assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal which was registered as Income Tax Appeal No.537/Mumbai/2016. The Assessing Officer also filed cross appeal being Income Tax (TP) No.199/Mumbai/2016. Both the appeals were heard together by the Tribunal and disposed off by the common order dated 04.01.2017. 13. Tribunal first took up the appeal of the Assessing Officer. One of the grounds of challenge in the appeal was exclusion of Motilal Oswal from the list of comparables by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Tribunal referred to its decision for earlier year wherein it was held that Motilal Oswal could not be compared with an assessee who is engaged in providing investment advisory services. Tribunal extensively referred to its earlier decision and came to the definite conclusion that the job profile of Motilal Oswal was different as compared to the activities undertaken by the assessee. While the assessee was rendering investment advisory services specifically related to real estate business, Motilal Oswal was a merchant banker. Therefore, Tribunal held that Motilal Oswal was liable to be excluded from the final set of comparables. 14. Tribunal also considered the cases of ICRA and IDC which were projected as comparables by the assessee but excluded by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Tribunal referred to one of its earlier decisions where ICRA was accepted as a comparable considering its broader functional comparability. 14. Tribunal also considered the cases of ICRA and IDC which were projected as comparables by the assessee but excluded by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Tribunal referred to one of its earlier decisions where ICRA was accepted as a comparable considering its broader functional comparability. Tribunal also referred to one of its orders where IDC was accepted as a valid comparable. In so far ICRA is concerned it was found that Tribunal had consistently held all along that ICRA was a valid comparable for an investment advisory company. Regarding IDC it was found by the Tribunal that it was not a product company but was a research company primarily dealing in research and survey services. It was also found that operational efficiency, future outlook etc. of IDC were similar to that of the functions and activities performed by the assessee for rendering investment advisory services. Considering the above, Tribunal held that ICRA and IDC should be included in the final list of valid comparables. Accordingly the appeal of the Assessing Officer was dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed with consequential deletion of the adjustment made by the Assessing Officer. 15. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us raising the above questions for consideration. 16. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 17. As would be evident from the above, grievance of the appellant i.e., the Revenue primarily revolves around exclusion of Motilal Oswal from the list of valid comparables and inclusion of ICRA and IDC as valid comparables. While in the case of Motilal Oswal the exclusion was directed by the Dispute Resolution Panel which decision was approved or rather affirmed by the Tribunal, in the case of ICRA and IDC Tribunal had interfered with the order of the Dipute Resolution Panel by directing their inclusion in the final set of valid comparables. 18. In the case of Motilal Oswal, Tribunal examined in detail the job profile and activities undertaken by it viz-a-viz that of the assessee. A finding of fact was rendered by the Tribunal that while the assessee was rendering investment advisory services more particularly with respect to real estate business, Motilal Oswal was a merchant banker. Therefore, Tribunal held that Motilal Oswal was liable to be excluded from the final set of comparables being functionally dissimilar to that of the assessee. 19. A finding of fact was rendered by the Tribunal that while the assessee was rendering investment advisory services more particularly with respect to real estate business, Motilal Oswal was a merchant banker. Therefore, Tribunal held that Motilal Oswal was liable to be excluded from the final set of comparables being functionally dissimilar to that of the assessee. 19. Regarding ICRA, Tribunal found that it had consistently held that ICRA was a valid comparable for an investment advisory company. It was held that ICRA was providing consultancy services in diverse areas and its core competence was mainly advisory services in various industries. It was held to be purely an advisory service rendering company. Therefore, Tribunal following the rule of consistency held that ICRA should be included in the final list of valid comparables. 20. In so far IDC is concerned, a categorical finding was rendered by the Tribunal that it was not a product company, rather it was a research company primarily dealing in research and survey services similar to that of the functions and activities performed by the assessee while rendering investment advisory services. 21. Thus from the above it is seen that Tribunal after exhaustive analysis came to the conclusion that Motilal Oswal was not functionally similar to that of the assessee whereas ICRA and IDC were found to be functionally similar to that of the assessee. Consequently, while Motilal Oswal was excluded, ICRA and IDC were included in the final set of comparables. 22. Whether two entities are functionally similar or not and consequently whether one should be treated as a comparable of the other is a question of fact. The answer arrived at to such question would be a finding of fact. Unless such answer is vitiated by perversity, no substantial question of law can be said to arise therefrom. In the context of international transactions and the resultant transfer pricing analysis to determine Arm's Length Price, Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal Commisioner of Income Tax Vs. Unless such answer is vitiated by perversity, no substantial question of law can be said to arise therefrom. In the context of international transactions and the resultant transfer pricing analysis to determine Arm's Length Price, Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal Commisioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.536 and 537 of 2015, decided on 25.06.2018, held that it is not open to either the assessee or the Revenue to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act merely because the Tribunal comes to reverse or modify the findings given by the Transfer Pricing Officer and / or by the Dispute Resolution Panel leaving out certain comparables or adding certain comparables for determining the Arm's Length Price in the hands of the assessee. Unless perversity in the finding(s) of the Tribunal is established, an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act should not be entertained as no substantial question of law can be said to arise therefrom. 23. Recently this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1125 of 2017, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Eight Roads Investment Pvt. Ltd., decided on 27.02.2020, declined to entertain an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260- A of the Act raising similar questions of exclusion and inclusion of comparables. 24. Therefore, on a thorough consideration, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.