Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 460 - ITAT MUMBAITP adjustment - comparable selection - functinal dissimilarity - broadcasting companies are not comparables with content producers like assessee - FAR analysis of content producer and broadcasting companies - HELD THAT:- we are of the view that the media content and TV broadcasting are totally dissimilar activities except the only linkage is that of media content is made only for the purpose of broadcasting on the TV channels. Production of media content is one of the functions of the assessee while broadcasting is the function of its AE and hence, due to functional divide & due to this aspect, this is the prime reason for entering into international transaction by the assessee with its AE. Hence, the activity of producing content and broadcasting the content is altogether different and not at all comparable. Even investment requires for making same content is very less compared to investment required for carrying out the broadcasting activity. Hence, on economic factor, functional analysis and the activities, these two are entities are dissimilar and cannot be compared. Hence, the CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO/ TPO to exclude the broadcasting companies taken by Revenue and by assessee while comparing the two. Inclusion of creative Eye Limited as comparables - HELD THAT:- We find that the Creative Eye Limited is functionally similar to the assessee company reason being it is also engaged in production of film production that is why is functionally same with the assessee. Even otherwise, in this year only, the loss is made by Creative Eye Limited due to loss of volume because of competitive pressure on account of production of 3D film ‘Abra Ka Dabra’. Hence, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. This issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Transfer Pricing adjustment made on account of income from distribution i.e. distribution Revenue (payment segment) - selection of MAM - CUP v/s TNMM - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee while making transfer pricing study under Cup Method, which is direct method available to the assessee and assessee has used the proper and scientific data which is available for comparison. But the TPO applied TNMM method for computing Arms Length Price without any basis just on the basis of search conducted on Google and comparing the data with cable TV operators. The assessee is consistently following the CUP method for benchmarking the transaction with its AE’s and for which scientific and correct data is available. TPO or the AO has not pointed out any ambiguity in the data supplied by the assessee for benchmarking the Cup Method in the TP study. The AO applied TNMM method which is without any data or any basis. Hence, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the adjustment and we confirm the same. Adjustment made to the reimbursement of advertisement and sale promotion expenses - HELD THAT:- Assessee has not availed any specific manpower for this purpose and existing manpower of the assessee has carried out for the incidental activity. In this process, the assessee also received indirect benefit in the shape of increased market development, as a result of major advertisement and sales promotion costs. Such costs will increase the viewership of the channel which will in turn result in higher income for the assessee in term of increase sales and distribution of adds receipt on the channels. Hence, according to us, no further expenditure has been incurred by assessee and consequently no further reimbursement was made by the assessee and hence, no markup can be added. Hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition. This appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Disallowing of advertisement and sale promotion expenses as incurred for assessee’s own business - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case as held assessee was in the business of acting as advertising sales agent in India and as the assessee was to receive a percentage of advertising revenue received in India as its commission, it was in the business interests of the assessee to incur advertisement and sales promotion expenditure so that there is increased advertisement revenue which in turn would entitle the assessee to receive increased commission. Accordingly, the expenditure claimed by the assessee was allowed as business expenditure. - Decided against revenue
|