9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. Before us it could not be disputed that the seven comparables which ultimately came to be excluded could not, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be engaged in activities which would satisfy the test of functional similarity. We also bear in consideration that the view taken by the Tribunal in this respect for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 was never assailed or questioned by the appellants. Consequently, we have taken note of hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeals. They shall, consequently, stand dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Appellant: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat Mr. V.K. Saksena, JSCs For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Roh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TV Today Network Ltd., Sun TV Network Ltd., Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., Zee Media Corporation Ltd. and UTV software communications Ltd should not be taken as comparables when all of these comparables are engaged in electronic media' and entertainment industry in providing production and related support services of television programmes and are hence functionally similar to the applying the Transactional Net Margin method under Rules 10B(1)(e) read with Rule 10B(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? 2.5 Whether while seeking the exact comparability the ld. ITAT was right in fact and in law in allowing 'software distributor companies' and disallowing companies involved in running 'entertainment Channels? 2.6 Whether the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annel companies who owned and operate various TV channels and undertake content creation on their own. The Tribunal in assessee s own case for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and also in Assessment Year 2006-07 have held that Satellite TV channels and cable network operators have significantly different operating models and provide earning model and once the Tribunal has held that such channel/ content owner companies should not be included for the purpose of comparability analysis, then there is no reason why the TPO is again selecting such companies for the purpose of benchmarking the ALP of the assessee s distribution segment. Before us, the learned counsel has already clarified on the basis of material available on record that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd.; are directed to be excluded. The other three comparables, namely, Empower Industries India Ltd. (56.65%), Sonata Information Technologies Ltd. (4.54%) and Softcell Technologies Ltd. (4.23%), have been accepted by the assessee. However, after working capital adjustment OP/OR of these three companies are as under: S. No. Name of comparable Working capital adjusted OP/OR 1. Empower Industries India Ltd. 0.43% 2. Sonata Information Technologies Ltd. 0.67% 3. Softcell Technologies Ltd. 2.24% Mean 1.11% 4. Before us it could not be disputed that the seven comparables which ultimately came to be excluded could not, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be engaged in activities which would satisfy the test of functional similarity. 5. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
