appears to have excluded that entity from the list of comparables on the ground that for the present as also the previous year, the entity had reported abnormally high profits. The Revenue correctly urges that abnormal profits per se do not warrant exclusion of the comparables which might otherwise be functionally similar. The assessee urges that for AY 2006-07 after the judgment was delivered by this Court [on 27.04.2015 in Chrysc apital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 376 ITR 183 (Delhi)], the question of functional similarity was gone into and the ITAT rendered elaborate findings that Keynote Corporate Service Ltd. was entirely dis-similar. It is submitted that likewise in January, 2017, similar findings with respect to functional dis-similarity of Keynote Corporate Service Ltd. from the assessee’s business were rendered by ITAT. It appears that Tribunal has not considered these judgments in the light of the settled law that each year’s findings might be a guide, but, cannot be conclusive on the issues involved. This Court notices that for AY 2007-08, undoubtedly, there were some special reasons inasmuch as Keynote Corporate Service Ltd had undergone amalgamation with another entity. In these circumstances, the question whether Keynote Corporate Service Ltd figures are to be included or not, requires fresh determination, having regard to the specific issue of functional similarity; the matter is therefore, remitted to ITAT. It is open to the ITAT to consider the findings with respect to the preceding years after the amalgamation. The ITAT will record its appropriate findings year-wise on the issue of functional similarity. ITA No.286/2018 Page 2 of 3
