SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADD/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: H BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 554/MUM/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA ADD/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO PRIVATE LIMITED NFAC DELHI 04 TH FLOOR, INTERFACE ADD/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/ BUILDINGS NO.07 OFF MALAD NFAC/DELHI Vs. LINK ROAD, MALAD WEST. NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI MUMBAI., -400064, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AADCS2942P Assessee:

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented Shri. P.J Pardiwala a/w Hiten by: Thakkar, ARs प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 16-Jun-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 15-09-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Act passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.AO”] dated 28/01/2022, for A.Y. 2017-18, on the following grounds of appeal:-

“On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/ Hon’ble DRP/ learned TPO has:

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED General grounds: 1. erred in assessing the total taxable income of the Appellant at INR 21,79,68,850 as against a total income of INR 13,51,05,197 as per the return of income filed by the Appellant. Reference to the TPO 2. erred in making a reference of the Appellant’s case to the TPO, without complying to provisions of Section 92CA, and thereby making a transfer pricing (‘TP’) adjustment of Rs.8,28,63,654 to the total income of the Appellant in respect of the international transaction of payment of license fees for TV syndication segment which is bad in law; Rejection of economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its transfer pricing study report. 3. erred in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis for international transaction of payment of license fees for TV syndication segment undertaken by the Appellant ie selection of TNMM as the most appropriate method and also choice of comparables ie software distributors companies and incorrectly applying revenue split mechanism under Other Method; TNMM requires only functional similarity and not product similarity 4. erred in not appreciating that TNMM only requires companies with functional similarity and not product similarity, and hence absent direct comparables, software distributors companies selected by the Appellant were appropriate comparables and thereby approach of the Hon’ble DRP/ learned TPO should be rejected; Principle of res judicata 5. erred in rejecting TNMM without appreciating that in the earlier assessment year (ie AY 2014-15) the approach, method and choice of comparables has been accepted by the TPO and thereby applying the principle of res judicata, TNMM should have been accepted in this year as well; Benchmarking analysis undertaken by the learned AO/ Hon’ble DRP/ learned TPO by considering revenue split mechanism under Other Method 6. erred in selecting Other Method (as per Section 92C) as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction by applying revenue split mechanism under other Method without appreciating that revenue split mechanism under other method will fail test of determination of arm’s length price as laid down in Rule 10AB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962; 7. without prejudice to the above ground, erred in applying the RSM using an adhoc basis of allocation of the revenue split (10% to be retained by

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant) without providing any economic/ scientific rationale, thereby making the TP adjustment of Rs 8,28,63,654 (ie difference between adhoc 10% revenue share less actual revenue share 5.21%) bad in law. Interest under Section 234B of the Act 8. erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act of INR 31,84,838. 9. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017–18 declaring total income of Rs.13,51,05,195/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a reference was made to the Ld.TPO in respect of the international transaction of payment of license fees for the TV syndication segment. The Ld.TPO rejected the benchmarking undertaken by the assessee under TNMM by adopting software distribution companies as comparables and proceeded to benchmark the transaction by applying Revenue Split method(RSM)/other method. In doing so, the Ld.TPO assigned weightages between the assessee and its AE on the basis of FAR analysis and ultimately allocated 10% of the gross revenue to the assessee, resulting in a TP adjustment of Rs.8,28,63,654/-.

On receipt of the Transfer Pricing order, the Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 01/04/2021 incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO.

On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred objections before the Ld.DRP.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED also furnished a computation under the Revenue Split Method(RSM) to contend that even on such basis the international transaction was at arm’s length.

3.1. The Ld.DRP, however, did not accept the objections of the assessee and upheld the action of the Ld.TPO.

On receipt of the DRP direction, the Ld.AO passed, final assessment order on 28/01/2022 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.21,79,68,850/-.

Aggrieved, by the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

SPE Holding being the AE granted the assessee the right to distribute films, programs and digital content ('licensed content) in the territories of India, Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim ('identified territory'). As per the inter-company agreement, the assessee is entitled to earn an assured distribution fee of 2% of revenues, after recovering all the operating expenses, for distributing the content licensed from its AE. Further, for the grant of these rights, the AE is entitled to consideration which is computed as 'Gross revenues' (defined under) earned by the assessee from distribution of the licensed content less 'Expenses' (including all distribution expenses and other operating expenses) less distribution fee which is 2% of Gross Revenue. The above arrangement represented by way of a mathematical formula is as follows:

Consideration payable to AE = Gross revenues - Expenses (Distribution expenses and Other expenses) - Distribution fee; 4

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 4.1. Gross revenues mean third party revenues (exclusive of taxes) earned by the assessee (or its sub-licensees or agents) by exploitation of the licensed content in the identified territory. Further, in case the sum of distribution fees and the total expenses for a fiscal year exceed the gross revenues earned by the assessee in that year, no consideration shall be paid to the AE. The assessee will be entitled to recover the shortfall between (expenses plus distribution fee) and the gross revenues earned, from the AE by way of a subvention, in order to ensure that it earns an assured margin from this distribution activities.

4.2. During the year under consideration, the Assesse has made payment of consideration IN 1,64,02,56,531 for the licensing of content for TV Syndication and also paid INR 16,17,451 towards consultancy fee. Further, the assessee submitted that the company has withheld taxes at the rate of 10.81% on the payments made to its AE and has enclosed sample copy of Form 16A for one quarter to demonstrate the same. Additionally, the assessee also submitted that the AE files a return of income in India and offers the income earned from SPE India to tax @ 10.815% on gross basis (without allowance of any expenses). An acknowledgement of the ROl was submitted during the course of TP assessment proceedings. The above indicated that the TV syndication income was entirely offered to tax in India.

4.3. It is submitted that the assessee adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method with Operating Profit / Operating Revenue(OP/OR) as the PLI as per the Transfer pricing study report. The assessee benchmarked the said transaction by running search to identify lateral comparables on the databases Prowess,

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Capitaline and ACE TP to find out comparables engaged in the distribution /trading of software, wherein the Assessee was considered as the tested party. It was submitted that as the aforesaid activity undertaken by assessee was similar to the distribution activity undertaken for any intangible product sold off the shelf, to the public at large, the activities undertaken by asessee were considered akin to those entities engaged in the distribution of software. In support, the assessee relied on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of:

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd (Successor of MSM Discovery (P.) Ltd) ACIT Vs NGC Network (India) Pvt Ltd ('NGC') (ITA No 5307/M/2008) 4.4. It was submitted that these rulings upheld the use of companies engaged in distribution of software for benchmarking distribution of content. The search process by the assessee thus resulted in following 14 comparables:-

Weighted average S Name of the Company unadjusted margin as No. per TP report (%) 1 Unisys Software and Holding Industries -0.34% Ltd 2 Empower India Ltd -0.10% 3 Avance Technologies Ltd -0.05% 4 JMD Ventures Ltd 0.13% 5 PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd 0.20% 6 Dimension Data India Pvt Ltd 0.39% 7 Rashi Peripherals Pvt Ltd 1.24% 8 Compuage Infocom Ltd 1.70% 9 Ingram Micro India Limited 2.35% 10 Redington (India) Ltd 2.40% 11 Ducon Infratechnologies Limited 3.07% 12 Savex Technologies Pvt Ltd 3.09%

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Weighted average S Name of the Company unadjusted margin as No. per TP report (%) 13 Sonata Information Technology Ltd 3.31% 14 Cadensworth (India) Limited 4.28% Data Place Range 5th 35th Percentile 0.20% Average of 7th& 8th Median 1.47% 10th 65th Percentile 2.40%

4.5. It was submitted that the Ld.TPO was not satisfied with the bench marking approach adopted by the assessee and thus issued show cause notice dated 26/01/2021 proposing to benchmark the transaction by selecting CUP by identifying third party royalty agreements as comparable. It was submitted that the Ld.TPO alternatively proposed to benchmark the transaction by applying RSM under Other Method by assigning adhoc weightages to the functions performed @30%, assets utilized @ 50% and risks assumed @ 20% by both entities in the transaction and worked out the assessee’s share @37% of the total revenues.

4.6. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the assessee in response to the notice filed its reply dated 28/01/2021 and submitted that the AE undertook significant efforts both creative inputs and monetary efforts in putting together the content, including negotiations for acquiring these movies/TV shows for various territories. It was submitted that the AE was responsible for maintaining and protecting this content from potential IP infringements, piracy risk etc. He submitted that the assessee rebutted each and every observation based on assumptions and incorrect facts by the Ld.TPO.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 4.7. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the Ld.TPO after going through the submissions and documents furnished by the assessee observed and held as under:

“1. Conclusion: The submission filed by the assessee was examined, studied and taken into consideration. The argument of the assessee that the content which it is distributing is Not Indian content was verified and was found to be tenable. The content is of global relevance, and the rights for the same are available with the AE. But, the functions that the assessee is performing, can not be compared with that of software distributors, for the reasons which have been mentioned in detail in the show cause notices quoted above. The reasons for it is implied from the fact that for the software distributors, the proportion of payouts as Royalty are on an average 30% of the receipts, while here, they have been approximately 95% of the receipts. The value of the Indian market, the efforts that the Assessee has put in order to distribute this content and the efforts that are taken by the assessee to comply with the legal and statutory compliances which are involved in distribution of Media content, the role it plays in liasoning with different clients, the functions it performs for marketing, can not be compared with those of software distributors. It is understood that since the content here is Not Indian, the weightage given to the asset should be more than what it was provided earlier. The value assigned to risks and functions is therefore reduced to that proportion and the revised ratio of profits which should be shared between the assessee and its AE as per the FAR analysis, is: 15:75:10, for the functions performed, Assets deployed and risks taken. The ratios within the Functions performed are also changed because now it is understood that the role of the assessee in chosing the content is limited. But its role in providing the distribution functions, which have been discussed in detail remains the same. Hence, out of 15% value that has been assigned towards functions, 10% is allocated to the Associated enterprise and 5% to the Assessee. The risks are shared in the same ratio as proposed earlier. It is understood that any third party which would perform the functions that the assessee is performing, would be compensated in proportion to the FAR that it undertakes. The detailed reasoning for not considering software distributors as the correct comparables, and the non availability of the comparables engaged independently in the exact function that the assessee is engaged in, is the reason for not considering TNMM method as the correct method to

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED determine profitability from the transaction under assessment. Moreover, media and entertainment is an industry which is heavily dependent on the number of users, and with the development of newer platforms like OTT, the role of the assessee in finding suitable clients to market its content, and putting forth the products of SONY group to its clients vis a vis the increased competition from other distributors, entails a greater proportion than the current 2% that it has been allowed to keep. The Indian Market is home to 1.25 billion people and 2.5 billion eyeballs. Though the content distributed by the assessee may not be relevant to the whole population, but it is also a fact that India is home to the largest number of English speakers in the world, and is an emerging market for the content which the assessee distributes. The assessee also dubs the content into regional languages, which makes it relevant for non English speaking audience. Hence, the Revenue from these operations is proposed to be split into the ratio of 10:90% between the Assessee and the AE, for the reasons stated above. The most appropriate method to benchmark this transaction that has been considered is Revenue Split Method, which is considered as Other method. The reasons for rejecting the benchmarking method adopted by the assessee have been stated already. 4.8. Based on the above approach the Ld.TPO re worked the assessee’s share to be 10% of the total revenue under RSP by reworking the adhoc weightage to the FAR allocation in the hands of the AE and proposed an adjustment at Rs.8,28,63,645/-, being the difference between the pay out as a percentage of revenue determined by assessees TP policy of 94.79% vis-a vis pay out as percentage of revenue determined by the Ld.TPO’s estimation approach @90%.

4.9. The Ld.AO passed the draft assessment order on 01/04/2921 by adding the proposed adjustment to the total income of the assessee. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee preferred objections before the DRP.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED profile, inappropriate rejection of economic analysis, inappropriate benchmarking analysis adopted by the Ld.TPO by adopting adhoc allocation of weightage under RSM which is not supported by the transfer pricing provisions under the statute.

5.1. It is submitted that the assessee in alternative reworked assessee’s share form the TV syndication operation as a without prejudice based on the risk undertaken between the AE and the assessee. The Ld.TPO had adopted 50:50 whereas, assessee in its TP study had adopted 89:11. It was submitted that the assessee did not assume significant economic risk and the allocation of risk was reworked by the assessee based on actual conduct having regard to the inter company agreement.

5.2. The DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee observed and held as under:

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 6. Before this Tribunal the principal grievance of the assessee on merit is that, the authorities below erred in rejecting the benchmarking under TNMM by adopting Revenue Split/Other Method for determination of the arm’s length price of the international transaction of payment of license fees. The assessee also challenged the adhoc allocation of revenue split between the assessee and its AE, as well as the consequential levy of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings.

6.1. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the assessee was granted rights by its AE, to distribute Hollywood (English) content, including English television shows and Hollywood movies, to broadcasters and OTT platforms in India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives (hereinafter referred to as the “identified territory”). Accordingly, it was submitted that the assessee was engaged in the distribution of Hollywood content in India and the identified territory. The Ld.Sr.Counsel pictographically depicted the TV Syndication business transaction between the assessee and its AE as under:

6.2. During the year under consideration, the AE granted the assessee the right to distribute Hollywood films (i.e., English shows and movies) (referred to as, ‘distribution rights’) to broadcasters and OTT platforms in the territories of India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan (‘identified territory’). The supply chain for TV syndication business and the role of each of the entities (i.e. SPE India, SPE LLC and third parties) in this business is presented by way of a graphical representation below:

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Broadcasters / OTT → Content distributor → → Viewers Content Owner Platform ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ (creator / acquirer) SPE LLC is the IP owner/ SPE India (tax Channel owners/ distributor for unrelated payer) merely OTT platform End third parties outside distributes the users owners showcase India Hollywood films on the content an As is Basis and decides the release of the film worldwide on all modes of exploitation As can be seen from above, SPE India’s role is limited to distribution of the film to the broadcasters and OTT platforms, and it is neither involved in any content acquisition nor undertakes any broadcasting functions. 6.3. It was further submitted that, under the agreement entered into by the assessee with its AE, the assessee had no right to distribute Indian content to broadcasters in India. The details of the titles distributed by the assessee was also verified by the Ld.TPO. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the AE was entirely responsible for the development of the content, identification of the genre of content to be acquired or licensed, financing of content acquisition, and maintenance and protection of the intellectual property rights in such content.

6.4. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that, for distributing the content licensed by its AE, the assessee was remunerated with an assured margin of 2% of the revenues after recovering all its operating expenses. The balance amount, after deduction of distribution expenses, other operating expenses and the assured distribution fee, was payable to the AE as licence fees for grant of television syndication rights. It was submitted that, even where the distribution segment incurred an operating loss, the assessee would offer a positive income to tax, as the arrangement ensured

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED an assured return to the assessee. The Ld.Sr.Counsel sunmitted that the consideration payable to the AE was determined in accordance with the following formula:

Consideration payable to AE = Gross revenues – Distribution expenses – Other expenses – Distribution fee.

6.5. It was submitted that “gross revenues” represented the revenues, exclusive of taxes, earned by the assessee, its sub- licensees or agents from exploitation of the licensed content in the identified territory. It was further submitted that, in the event the aggregate of the distribution fee and the total expenses incurred during a financial year exceeded the gross revenues earned by SPE India, no consideration would be payable to AE for that year. In such circumstances, the assessee would be entitled to recover the shortfall between the aggregate expenses and distribution fee, on the one hand, and the gross revenues earned, on the other, from AE by way of subvention. This arrangement ensured that SPE India earned the assured net margin from its distribution activity.

6.6. According to the Ld.Sr.Counsel, the arrangement between the assessee and its AE clearly demonstrate that the assessee operated as a limited-risk distributor of the licensed English content in the specified territories. HE submitted that the assessee merely undertook the distribution functions, while the significant commercial and economic risks associated with the acquisition, development and ownership of the content remained with AE.

6.7. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that, to determine the ALP of the international transaction relating to payment of licence fees for the television syndication business, assessee undertook transfer

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED pricing study through an independent external consultant. A detailed analysis of the functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed (FAR analysis) by the assessee and its AE was carried out in respect of the relevant international transaction.

6.8. Based on such FAR analysis undertaken independently, assessee was characterized as a limited-risk distributor performing limited distribution functions under the guidance of its AE in the identified territories. On the other hand, AE was characterized as the entrepreneurial entity responsible for owning or acquiring the content licensed to the assessee and bearing the economically significant risks associated with the business. It is submitted that the AE was entirely responsible for developing or acquiring the licensed content and maintaining and protecting the intellectual property rights therein. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the role of the assessee was limited to distributing the content, on an “as is” basis, on its own account in the identified territories.

6.9. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that, for determining the arm’s length price of the international transaction, the assessee undertook economic analysis in accordance with the provisions of the Act, read with the Rules. It is submitted that the assessee adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method, using Operating Profit/Operating Revenue (OP/OR) as the Profit Level Indicator (PLI). The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the assessee appropriately adopted the TNMM as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction relating to payment of licence fees to AE. It was submitted that the nature of the transaction, the functions performed by the assessee, and the

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED absence of reliable direct comparables justified the adoption of TNMM.

6.10. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the assessee was engaged in the distribution of licensed English content and did not own, develop, acquire or create any intellectual property in the content distributed by it. The assessee's functions were limited to undertaking distribution activities in the identified territories, while the AE was responsible for the development or acquisition of the content, financing of such acquisition, and maintenance and protection of the underlying intellectual property. Thus, the assessee was a limited-risk distributor operating under the guidance of its AE. It was submitted that the assessee's remuneration was structured in such a way to ensure assured return of 2% on its operating revenues after recovery of operating expenses. He further submitted that, where the distribution activity did not generate sufficient revenue to cover the distribution fee and operating expenses, the assessee was entitled to recover the shortfall from its AE by way of subvention. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that, such arrangement demonstrate that the assessee was not exposed to the significant entrepreneurial risks associated with the exploitation of the licensed content. Its remuneration was, therefore, appropriately evaluated by reference to the net operating margin earned from its distribution functions.

6.11. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that, CUP could not be reliably applied in the present case, as there were no uncontrolled transactions involving comparable television syndication rights, licensed Hollywood content, territories, contractual terms and economic circumstances. The licence fees payable to the AE were

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED intrinsically linked to the revenues generated from exploitation of the licensed content and the overall distribution arrangement. In the absence of reliable uncontrolled transactions involving comparable rights, a direct price comparison would not provide a dependable basis for determining the arm's length price.

6.12. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further submitted that the application of the Cost Plus Method was not appropriate, since the international transaction did not involve the provision of services by the assessee to the AE on a cost-plus basis. The consideration payable to the AE was linked to the gross revenues earned from exploitation of the licensed content, after taking into account the distribution expenses and the assured distribution fee. The cost base of the assessee, therefore, could not be regarded as a reliable indicator of the arm's length consideration for the licensed content.

6.13. It was further submitted that the application of the RPM was also not appropriate in the peculiar facts of the case. The assessee was not a conventional reseller purchasing and reselling standardised goods. It was required to undertake distribution functions involving negotiations with broadcasters and OTT platforms, management of distribution arrangements, coordination of exploitation of licensed content and related commercial activities. Further, the licensed content was not a standardised product for which reliable resale price margins could readily be identified. Accordingly, the net margin earned by the assessee from its distribution functions constituted a more reliable basis for benchmarking the transaction.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 6.14. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the assessee had undertaken a search using the Prowess, Capitaline and ACE databases to identify companies engaged in the distribution of television and other content. The search initially identified one company engaged in theatrical distribution. However, the said company was not considered a reliable comparable on account of differences in the nature of content, exploitation rights, distribution channels and revenue arrangements. In the absence of reliable direct comparables engaged in television and OTT content distribution, the assessee undertook a lateral search for companies engaged in distribution activities in other sectors, which resulted in the identification of companies engaged in the distribution of computer software and hardware.

6.15. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the selection of such companies was based on functional similarities in the distribution activities undertaken, rather than merely on the nature of the products distributed. It was contended that, under the TNMM, the relevant comparison was the net operating margin earned by enterprises performing broadly comparable functions, employing comparable assets and assuming comparable risks. The selected companies were engaged in distribution functions such as marketing, sales, customer and channel management, order execution, inventory or distribution management, and related commercial support activities, which were broadly comparable to the functions performed by the assessee. Accordingly, their operating margins could provide a reasonable basis for benchmarking the assessee’s international transaction, subject to an examination of the relevant comparability factors.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 6.16. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the assessee's distribution activity was functionally closer to the distribution of intangible or technology-related products, such as computer software, than to the development or creation of content. The assessee neither developed the licensed content nor undertook significant value addition to the underlying intellectual property. Its role was limited to commercially exploiting and distributing the licensed content in the identified territories. Accordingly, companies engaged in software distribution, or in comparable distribution functions involving technology-related products, could be considered for the purpose of applying the TNMM, subject to verification of their actual functions and risk profiles. He placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP vs.DCIT reported in (2025) 179 taxmann.com 644.

6.17. It was further submitted that the TNMM was less sensitive to certain product-level differences than methods based on direct price comparisons. Differences in the nature of the software, hardware or licensed content distributed may affect the price of the underlying product or rights, but such differences would not necessarily preclude a comparison of the net operating margins of enterprises performing broadly comparable distribution functions. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the use of operating profit to operating revenue as the PLI was appropriate, as it measured the return earned by the assessee from its distribution activity after accounting for the operating expenses incurred in performing its functions.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 6.18. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the selected comparables were not being relied upon on the basis of an assumption that software distribution and content distribution were identical activities. Rather, the comparables were selected after considering the absence of reliable direct comparables and the functional similarities in the distribution functions performed. It was submitted that the comparability analysis should focus on the functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed, along with the availability of reliable financial data, and should not be rejected merely because the comparables distributed different products.

6.19. The Ld.Sr.Counsel thus submitted that, having regard to the assessee's limited-risk profile, the assured remuneration structure, the absence of reliable direct comparables and the functional similarities with the distribution companies identified through the lateral search, the adoption of TNMM using OP/OR as the PLI was justified. The companies engaged in software and hardware distribution were submitted to be suitable comparables, subject to examination of their actual functional profile and other relevant comparability factors.

6.20. He placed reliance on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in case of Sony Pictures India Pvt.Ltd in ITA no.971/Mum/2016, decision of Hon’ble Delhi tribunal in case of Turner International India Pvt.Ltd vs.ACIT reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com 285. He submitted that the principle laid down in the decision of Turner(supra) has been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Ld. PCIT vs. Warnermedia India(Pvt.)Ltd reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 307.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 7. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted vide written submission, which is summarised as under:

The Ld. DR, placing reliance on the orders of the Ld.TPO and the DRP, submitted that the benchmarking carried out by the assessee by adopting companies engaged in the software industry as comparables was fundamentally inappropriate, considering the complete functional dissimilarity between the software industry and the assessee’s business of distribution of licensed television/film content. It was submitted that the decisions relied by the assessee, wherein software companies had been accepted as comparables, were rendered in circumstances where reliable third- party comparables from the television, film and media industry were unavailable and the alternative methods adopted by the TPO/DRP were found unsuitable. According to the Ld. DR, the said decisions would therefore not assist the assessee in the present case, since the Ld. TPO had adopted the RSM to benchmark the impugned transaction. It was further submitted that the overall weightage of 15:75:10 adopted in respect of functions, assets and risks was accepted both by the assessee and the Ld.TPO and, therefore, the dispute was essentially regarding the appropriate allocation of such weightage between the assessee and its AE.

7.1. The Ld.DR further submitted that even the FAR analysis furnished by the assessee before the DRP, when appropriately adjusted to reflect the actual functions performed and risks assumed by the parties, supported the attribution of approximately 10% of the revenue to the assessee. Referring to the TP study report and the underlying agreement, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee understated its contribution in relation to various

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED functions. In respect of distribution of licensed content in India, though the assessee allocated 5% to the AE and 15% to itself out of the weightage of 20%, the entire distribution function was performed by the assessee, including identifying prospective licensees, negotiating terms and sublicensing the content. Accordingly, the entire weightage of 20% was stated to be attributable to the assessee. Similarly, in respect of product pricing, the assessee determined the price having regard to demand, competitors pricing and market dynamics, while the AE merely provided inputs as and when sought. The entire weightage of 10%, therefore, was stated to be attributable to the assessee.

7.2. As regards obtaining statutory approvals, logistics, invoicing and collection, the Ld.DR submitted that the agreement and the assessee’s own FAR analysis demonstrated that the substantive responsibilities were cast on the assessee. It is submitted that the assessee was responsible for obtaining the requisite approvals and copyright protection, ensuring delivery of digital files to licensees; raising invoices, collecting revenue from sublicensees, maintaining books and records, furnishing accounting statements, and making remittances to the licensor. Though the AE made the licensed content available to the assessee, the Ld.DR contended that the operative responsibilities in India rested with the assessee. On this basis, the weightage attributable to functions was recomputed at 9% for the AE and 6% for the assessee.

7.3. Insofar as the risks were concerned, the Ld.DR disputed the assessee’s contention that its assured margin of 2% of gross revenue substantially insulated it from market and collection risks. It was submitted that any reduction in revenue from distribution

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED would directly affect the assessee’s income, whereas the AE was not dependent solely upon the Indian revenue stream. Further, the contractual provisions exposed the assessee to consequences including termination for failure to discharge its obligations. Accordingly, the Ld.DR proposed equal allocation of the market risk relating to failure of licensed content, i.e., 10% each between the AE and the assessee, instead of 15% and 5% respectively. Likewise, the credit and collection risk, which had been allocated entirely to the AE, was proposed to be divided equally at 10% each.

7.4. In respect of unauthorised exploitation/piracy risk, against the assessee’s allocation of 40% to the AE and 5% to itself, the Ld. DR contended that piracy affected the assessee’s revenue directly and that the contractual obligation for copyright protection was cast upon the assessee. The said risk was, therefore, proposed to be shared equally at 22.5% each. On the other hand, the allocation relating to shortage of licensed content and foreign exchange risk was substantially retained. On such reallocation, the weighted risk attribution worked out to 5.65% for the AE and 4.35% for the assessee.

7.5. Accordingly, the Ld.DR submitted that, after recasting the FAR analysis, the total relevant weightage worked out to 14.65% for the AE and 10.35% for the assessee, insofar as the functions and risks relevant to such attribution were concerned. Since the assessee’s entitlement thereby worked out to approximately 10.35%, the allocation of 10% made by the Ld.TPO under the Revenue Split Method was contended to be substantially in conformity with the assessee’s own FAR analysis and, therefore, the transfer pricing adjustment deserved to be sustained.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 7.6. The Ld.DR further opposed the assessee’s contention that the “other method” contemplated under Rule 10AB necessarily required identification of direct comparables. It was submitted that Rule 10AB requires consideration of the price charged or which would have been charged between independent enterprises and that, in the present case, the Revenue Split Method had been applied by considering how the functions and risks would have been remunerated in an uncontrolled third-party scenario. According to the Ld. DR, the expression “price” for this purpose would also encompass the margin attributable under independent transaction principles.

7.7. Without prejudice, the Ld.DR submitted that, should the software comparables selected by the assessee be considered relevant, the matter ought to be restored to the file of the Ld.TPO/AO for proper verification of such comparables and of the search process adopted by the assessee, since neither the Ld.TPO nor the DRP examined those comparables on merits. Reference was also made to the cases of Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. and NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd., wherein the issue concerning comparables were restored to the Ld.TPO. The Ld.DR accordingly prayed that the assessee’s appeal be dismissed; alternatively, the benchmarking issue be restored to the Ld. TPO/AO for fresh examination.

In rejoinder vide submission dated 21/07/2026, to the above the assessee submitted as under:

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED submitted that comparable companies engaged in the distribution of content in the film/entertainment industry were not available on account of significant related-party transactions. Consequently, the assessee was compelled to broaden the search and consider companies from the software industry. According to the Ld.Sr.Counsel, even the Ld.TPO in the order dated 30/01/2021 and the Ld.DR during the course of hearing accepted the non- availability of suitable comparables engaged in the same distribution business. It was, therefore, contended that the benchmarking adopted by the assessee could not be rejected merely because the comparables were drawn from the software industry. Reliance was placed, inter alia, on the decisions in ACIT v. NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd(supra)., Turner International India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT(supra), PCIT v. Warner Media India P. Ltd.(supra), Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) and Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. DCIT(supra).

8.1. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further controverted Revenue’s reliance on the “other method” prescribed under Rule 10AB. It was submitted that Rule 10AB contemplates determination of the arm’s length price with reference to the price charged or paid, or which would have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled transaction between non-associated enterprises under similar circumstances. In the present case, according to the assessee, the Ld.TPO did not bring on record any comparable uncontrolled transaction and instead determined the ALP by assigning weightages of 15:75:10 to functions, assets and risks on an ad hoc basis. Such an exercise, according to the Ld.Sr.Counsel, was inherently subjective and could not satisfy the statutory

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED requirement of comparability under section 92C read with Rule 10AB. Reliance in this regard was placed on Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. DCIT, wherein it was emphasised that the “other method” cannot be applied through arbitrary attribution without comparable uncontrolled transactions or other reliable market evidence.

8.2. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the alternative FAR computation submitted by the assessee before the DRP was only a without-prejudice analysis to demonstrate that even under Revenue Split approach, the international transaction substantially satisfied the arm’s length standard. The case made out by the Ld.Sr.Counsel was that TNMM is the Most Appropriate Method and that the RSM adopted by the Ld.TPO had no proper legal or economic basis. It was submitted that the very attempt of the Revenue to subsequently reallocate the weightages assigned to various functions and risks demonstrated the subjective nature of the RSM as applied by the Ld.TPO.

8.3. Dealing specifically with the reallocation proposed by the Ld.DR, the Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the original allocation adopted by the assessee reflected the respective contributions of the assessee and its AE. In respect of the distribution function, the 5% allocation to the AE was justified since the AE provided advertising materials, including trailers, advertising content and accessories required for distribution. It was further submitted that on termination of the distribution agreement, the AE was contractually entitled to step into the assessee’s position in respect of third-party distribution contracts and undertake the distribution activity in India. It was therefore submitted that the

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED contention that the entire distribution function was performed solely by the assessee was incorrect.

8.4. With respect to product pricing, the Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the 2.5% weightage allocated to the AE was justified because, although assessee determined the pricing having regard to demand, competitors’ pricing and market dynamics, it could seek inputs from the AE regarding pricing on a need basis. Similarly, the allocation of 5% to the AE in respect of logistics was stated to be justified since the AE was responsible for ensuring that the licensed content, including prints, tapes, digital files and other elements, was made available to the assessee for onward distribution in India. According to the Ld.Sr.Counsel, the activities relating to obtaining approvals and invoicing/collection were routine and administrative functions performed after the core logistics function had been undertaken by the AE.

8.5. As regards market risk, the Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that only 5% was appropriately attributable to the assessee since the assessee was assured a net margin of 2% after recovery of all expenses under the agreement. Any fall in revenue, according to the assessee, would therefore primarily affect the AE and not the assessee in the manner suggested by the Ld.DR. The Ld.Sr.Counsel also disputed the Revenue’s reliance on the termination clause and submitted that termination could arise only upon fulfilment of contractual conditions and not merely on account of fluctuations in revenue.

8.6. In respect of credit and collection risk, the assessee reiterated that no such risk was borne by it because it was assured the

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED stipulated net margin after recovery of expenses. The risk of non- payment by third parties, according to the assessee, ultimately rested with the AE. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that allocation of 10% to such risk to the assessee by the Ld.DR was therefore stated to be contrary to the contractual arrangement and the factual position.

8.7. Regarding privacy/unauthorised exploitation risk, the Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the assessee’s exposure was limited. The assessee did not invest any money in acquiring or producing the underlying content and received an assured return from distribution, whereas the AE had invested in acquiring/producing the content and would suffer the economic impact of any decline in revenue arising from piracy. The allocation of only 5% of such risk to the assessee was therefore defended as appropriate and consistent with the FAR analysis.

8.8. On the basis of the assessee’s original allocation, the Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that the share attributable to the assessee under the FAR analysis worked out to 27.5% of the functions, nil of the assets and 11% of the risks, translating into weighted contributions of 4.13%, nil and 1.10%, respectively. Accordingly, the aggregate allocation attributable to the assessee worked out to 5.23%, and the corresponding payout to the AE worked out to approximately 94.77% of the revenue, which, according to the assessee, itself demonstrated that the international transaction was at arm’s length even under the alternative Revenue Split analysis.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 8.9. The Ld.Sr.Counsel also opposed the alternative prayer of the Ld.DR for remand of the matter to the Ld.TPO for verification of the software comparables. It was submitted that the Ld.TPO already called for and examined the annual reports and updated margins of the comparables selected by the assessee and, after such examination, rejected them only on the ground that they were not engaged in the film/entertainment industry. Therefore, it was contended that it was factually incorrect to suggest that the comparables had never been examined by the Ld.TPO.

8.10. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further distinguished the decisions in Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. and NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd. relied upon by the Revenue for seeking remand. It was submitted that in Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd., the comparables themselves had been accepted and the matter was restored merely for working out the resultant transfer pricing adjustment. Likewise, in NGC Network India Pvt. Ltd., the matter was restored for recomputation under TNMM using the appropriate year’s comparable data and not for a fresh search or reconsideration of the comparables themselves. The Ld.Sr.Counsel submitted that no case was made out for remanding the present matter to the Ld.TPO and prayed that the Revenue’s objections as well as the alternative plea for remand be rejected.

We have perused the submission advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED of the licence fees payable to the AE by applying the RSplit Method, based on an allocation of functions, assets and risks.

9.1. The assessee was granted rights by its AE to distribute licensed Hollywood content, comprising English television shows and films, to broadcasters and OTT platforms in the identified territories. It is not in dispute that the AE was responsible for the development or acquisition of the content, financing such acquisition, and maintaining and protecting the underlying intellectual property rights. The assessee, on the other hand, undertook the distribution of the licensed content on an “as is” basis.

9.2. We further note that, under the contractual arrangement, the assessee was entitled to an assured distribution margin of 2% of its operating revenues after recovery of the operating expenses. The consideration payable to the AE was determined with reference to the gross revenues earned from exploitation of the licensed content, after deduction of distribution expenses, other operating expenses and the assured distribution fee. Where the aggregate of the expenses and distribution fee exceeded the gross revenues, the assessee was entitled to recover the shortfall from the AE by way of subvention.

9.3. The aforesaid contractual arrangement is a relevant factor in appreciating the economic character of the international transaction. The assessee did not own, develop or acquire the underlying content and was not responsible for the associated content-acquisition expenditure or the protection of the intellectual property. Its remuneration was also structured to provide an

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED assured return from the distribution activity. These features support the assessee’s characterisation as a limited-risk distributor, although the precise functions and risks undertaken by the parties must necessarily be examined having regard to the actual terms of the agreement and the conduct of the parties.

9.4. The assessee adopted TNMM, using operating profit to operating revenue as the Profit Level Indicator, after undertaking a FAR analysis. It is the case of the assessee that, since reliable uncontrolled transactions involving comparable television syndication rights and licensed Hollywood content were not available, it undertook a lateral search for enterprises engaged in distribution activities in other sectors. The search resulted in the identification of companies engaged in the distribution of software and hardware.

9.5. In our considered view, the suitability of a comparable under TNMM cannot be determined solely by reference to the nature of the product distributed. The relevant inquiry is whether the enterprises perform broadly comparable functions, employ comparable assets and assume comparable risks, and whether the available financial information permits a reasonably reliable comparison of their net operating margins. Product differences may, depending upon the circumstances, affect comparability. However, such differences do not, by themselves, render a comparable unsuitable where the underlying distribution functions and economic characteristics are sufficiently similar.

9.6. The record, as reflected in the submissions, indicates that the assessee undertook search through the Prowess, Capitaline and

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ACE databases. The search initially identified a company engaged in theatrical distribution, which was not considered reliable on account of differences in the nature of content, exploitation rights, distribution channels and revenue arrangements. The assessee thereafter undertook a lateral search for distribution companies in other sectors. The Ld.TPO called for the annual reports and updated margins of the companies selected by the assessee, but rejected the benchmarking primarily on the ground that the companies were not engaged in the film or entertainment industry.

9.7. We are of the view that the mere fact that the selected companies were engaged in software or hardware distribution could not, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for discarding the benchmarking exercise. The relevant functions, assets, risks, contractual arrangements and financial data were required to be examined in accordance with the statutory comparability requirements. The fact that the products distributed by the comparables were different from licensed Hollywood content was a factor for examination, but it could not automatically conclude the inquiry against the assessee.

9.8. We also find that the Ld.TPO adopted the RSM and assigned weightages of 15:75:10 to functions, assets and risks, respectively. On the basis of such weightages, the revenue attributable to the assessee and its AE was determined. However, the material placed before us does not demonstrate the existence of any identified comparable uncontrolled transaction or reliable market evidence from which the aforesaid weightages, or the resultant allocation of revenue, could be objectively derived.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 9.9. The Revenue has sought to justify the allocation by contending that the assessee performed substantial functions relating to the distribution of licensed content, pricing, obtaining statutory approvals, logistics, invoicing and collection. It has also contended that the assessee bore a greater share of the market, credit and collection, and unauthorised exploitation risks. We do not dispute that the actual functions performed and risks assumed by the parties are relevant to the determination of the arm’s length price. However, the identification of functions and risks is distinct from the determination of the economic value attributable to each such function or risk.

9.10. In the present case, the Ld.TPO could not demonstrate, with cogent material, how the particular weightages assigned to the respective functions, assets and risks were determined, or how those weightages represented the manner in which independent enterprises would have remunerated the parties. A mere attribution of percentages to functions, assets and risks, without a reliable basis for quantifying the respective economic contributions, cannot, by itself, establish the arm’s length price of the licence fees.

9.11. We are also unable to accept the contention that the allocation of revenue under the RSM can be sustained merely because the overall weightage of 15:75:10 was not disputed by the assessee in the manner suggested by the Revenue. The statutory determination of the arm’s length price cannot be founded on an allocation which is unsupported by an objective economic basis. The burden of demonstrating the correctness of the adjustment remains on the Revenue, and the subsequent reallocation proposed

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED by the Ld.DR, though advanced with reference to the FAR analysis, does not cure the absence of a demonstrated basis for the original allocation adopted by the Ld.TPO.

9.12. We further note that the alternative FAR analysis submitted by the assessee before the DRP was expressly advanced without prejudice. The assessee’s primary contention remained that TNMM was the most appropriate method and that the RSM adopted by the Ld.TPO lacked legal and economic foundation. Therefore, the alternative allocation furnished by the assessee cannot be treated as an admission that the RSM, as applied by the Ld.TPO, was validly undertaken.

9.13. The Revenue has also contended that the expression “price” occurring in Rule 10AB would include a margin attributable under independent transaction principles and that the RSM could be applied without identifying a direct comparable uncontrolled transaction. We are of the view that, irrespective of the method selected, the determination of the arm’s length price must be based on the statutory framework and reliable material relevant to the transaction under consideration. The mere assertion that a particular share of revenue would be appropriate in an uncontrolled scenario cannot substitute the objective analysis required for determining the arm’s length price.

9.14. In the present case, the assessee’s benchmarking under TNMM was undertaken after a FAR analysis and a search for companies engaged in distribution activities. The Revenue has not demonstrated that the selected companies were wholly unsuitable on account of specific and material functional or risk differences,

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED nor has it established that the net margins of the selected companies could not provide a reasonably reliable basis for benchmarking the assessee’s distribution activity. On the other hand, the RSM adopted by the Ld.TPO is founded upon an allocation of weightages for which no adequate objective basis has been demonstrated.

9.15. We also take note of the decisions relied upon by the assessee, including the decisions in Turner International India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT(supra), PCIT v. Warner Media India (P.) Ltd.(supra), Sony Pictures India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP.(supra). The assessee relied on these decisions in support of the proposition that, in the absence of reliable direct comparables in the relevant industry, the suitability of alternative distribution comparables and the appropriate transfer pricing method must be examined with reference to the functions performed and risks assumed. The precise applicability of those decisions would depend upon the facts and the issues decided therein. Nevertheless, the principle of functional comparability and the requirement of a reliable basis for determining the arm’s length price are relevant to the present adjudication.

9.16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the rejection of the assessee’s TNMM benchmarking and determination of ALP under the RSM, on the basis of ad hoc allocation of functions, assets and risks, cannot be not sustained. The transfer pricing adjustment made on this account is accordingly is deleted.

9.17. We further note from the questionnaire issued by the Ld. TPO and the material available on record that the comparables selected

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED by the assessee from the software distribution segment had already been examined by the Ld. TPO with reference to their operating margins, functional, asset and risk profile and other relevant details. The said comparables were not rejected on account of any specific defect in the margins or the FAR analysis, but essentially on the ground that the companies were engaged in software or hardware distribution rather than distribution of television and film content. As discussed hereinabove, such distinction, by itself, cannot constitute a sufficient basis for rejecting the comparables under TNMM. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. AO to determine the arm’s length price of the international transaction relating to payment of licence fees by adopting TNMM as the Most Appropriate Method, considering the comparables selected by the assessee under the software distribution segment, which have already been examined by the Ld. TPO, and recompute the total income of the assessee in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are accordingly allowed.

Accordingly, grounds 2-7 raised by the assessee stands allowed.

10.1. Ground no.1 is general in nature and do not require any adjudication.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED specified under section 153(1) of Act and also that, since the draft assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is beyond the time specified under the TOLA Act ,2020, the final assessment order passed is beyond the period of limitation.

As we have decided the issues raised by the assessee on merits, we are not inclined to adjudicate the legal issue raised by the assessee as it becomes academic at this stage.

Accordingly additional grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15-09-2026

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 15-09-2026 Shamik, Sr. P.S.

ITA 554/MUM/2022 SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Copy to: SONY PICTURES FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 04 TH FLOOR, INTERFACE BUILDINGS 1 NO.07 OFF MALAD LINK ROAD, MALAD WEST. MUMBAI., -400064, MAHARASHTRA ADD/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO NFAC DELHI, 2 ADD/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC/D ELHI, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI