Loading judgment…

Espn Software India (P) Ltd… vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2017 | BharatTax

ESPN SOFTWARE INDIA (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

ITA 3457/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 February 2017AY 2006-0735 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Knorr-Bremse India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
380 ITR 307 · 2016 · HC
63 citing
Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum v. State Bank of Travancore
50 Taxmann.com 240 · 2014 · HC
5 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: CA Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv

Hearing: 11.11.2017Pronounced: 08.02.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

The appeal by the department for the assessment year 2005-06 is directed against the order dated 24.02.2012 of the ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi and the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 is directed against the order dated ESPN Software India Ltd. 30.04.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. At the first instance we will deal with the appeal of the department in for the assessment year 2005-06. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,14,48,497/- being the Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the TPO as per his order u/s 92 CA (3) dated 30.10.2008.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred considering the operating margin of the assessee company by clubbing together the segments of distribution of channels and sale of air time advertisements, when the amount of international transactions relating to the two activities was almost at par, and, when the operating margins in the three cases considered by the CIT(A) himself as comparable cases related only to the segment of sale of air time advertisement. 3.On the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in holding that Sun TV Network India Ltd. is not a comparable case, when the TPO had compared the operating margins in the same segment, i.e. sale of air time advertisement. 4.The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, errand or vary from the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” ESPN Software India Ltd.

3. From the above grounds, it is gathered that the main grievance of the department relates to the deletion of addition of Rs.19,14,48,497/- made by the AO on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment.

4.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2005 declaring an income of Rs.32,78,57,120/-. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) u/s 92CA(3) of the Act in respect of the international transaction entered into by the assessee during the financial year 2004- 05 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The TPO vide order dated 30.10.2008 passed u/s 92CA(3) of the Act recommended that the income of the assessee be enhanced by Rs.19,14,48,497/-. The TPO noted from the TP study and the audited account that the assessee was maintaining separate audited segmental accounts for subscription/distribution business, advertisement sale business, production revenue business and set out segmental profitability based on such division. However, for transfer pricing purposes, the assessee had aggregated financials of both the distribution business and advertisement sale business leaving financial of third division relating to production business as it is. He also observed that the assessee had selected TNMM as the most appropriate method with OP/TC as a Profit Level Indicator (PLI) which was computed at 7.82% and the OP/TC of ten comparables ESPN Software India Ltd. identified on the basis of search criteria in the TP report had been computed at 1.01% on the basis of multiple year data. He further observed that for other segment relating to production of revenue, the PLI was computed at 6.78%, the PLI of the comparables for this segment had been computed at 8.53% and on the basis of ±5% analysis of the TP report, it was claimed that all the transactions were at Arm’s Length Price. The TPO selected new comparables which were objected by the assessee. The assessee submitted before the TPO that the clubbing of distribution of channels and distribution of advertisement inventory was justified, reliance was placed on paras 1.42 and 1.44 of the OECD guidelines. The assessee also submitted that international transaction of distribution of advertisement air time should be bench marked using the resale price method (RPM). It was also stated that gross profit/sales ratio of the assessee for advertisement inventory segment was 13.87%. The assessee worked out the average GP/sales of 10 comparables at 14.05% and claimed that international transactions relating to advertisement purchased was at arm’s length price. The assessee objected to the use of financial year 2004-05 data in the cases of comparables selected by the TPO and also stated to use of positive PBIT. The objection of the assessee for each comparable selected by the TPO were as under: “(a) Aaren Initiative Outdoor Advertising Private Limited - It had been stated that this company is engaged into outdoor advisement of its product by putting hoardings on the road ESPN Software India Ltd. side, vehicles etc. It had been stated that the functional profile is different than this comparable. (b) Adbur Private Limited- It had been stated that only financial data is available in the public domain. The other qualitative details like director's report, management discussion, notes of accounts are not available in the public domain. (c) Empire Industries Ltd. - It had been stated that this company is engaged in different product profile of manufacturing, glass bottle for the pharmaceutical industries. (d) Sun TV Ltd. - It had been stated that this company had different product profile. The ratio of intangible asset to total asset had been stated to 22.23%. It had been stated that this company is not comparable to the assessee. (e) Mid-day Multimedia Ltd. - It had been stated that the functional profile of company is different than the assessee. It had also been stated that the ratio of intangible asset as a percentage of total fixed assets was 14.83%. Assessee had stated that in the annexure 9 and page 35 of the Annual Report there where the related party transactions. Therefore, this company should not be used as a comparable.”

6.

The TPO considered the submissions of the assessee and did not accept this contention that distribution of channels and advertisement sale inventory were closely linked business segment for the following reasons: “(a) The assessee has three different and distinct economic activities and for this reason the assessee had drawn accounts for each of these economic activities separately. However, for transfer pricing purpose the assessee had merged financial of two different audited segmental accounts i.e., financial of distribution business segment were merged with financial of advertisement sale business segment only leaving third audited segmental account for production service business segment. The main reason for the merger of distribution business segment with advertisement sale business segment was to conceal loss of Rs.1.07 crore from advertisement sale segment which got absorbed in profit of ESPN Software India Ltd. Rs. 29.38 crores from distribution business segment and to reduce profit of distribution business segment. (b) The assessee was following two different business model for advertisement sale and distribution business segment. In both the models mode of compensation to the assessee was different, accordingly benchmarking of margin of two different business models after making an artificial aggregation will breach the concept of comparability analysis. (c) The transfer pricing legislation in India is based on the determination of arm's length price for each Intl. transactions. The reference to this office by the A.O is also transaction based. Therefore, the aggregation of Intl. transaction for the bench marking has to be an exception rather than a rule. (d) The reliance placed by the assessee on OECD guidelines is also misplaced. The OECD guidelines in para 1.42 has clearly provided that for most precise approximation of fair market value, the arm's length principle should be applied on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the assessee for the aggregation of intl. transaction on the basis of the OECD guideline is based on incorrect appreciation of guidelines.”

9.

The TPO summarized his findings in para 11 of the order dated 30.10.2008 as under: “(a) I have accepted TNMM as most appropriate method as disclosed by the assessee. (b) In this case, the assessee in its transfer pricing report had merged two audited separate business segments i.e., distribution business segment and advertisement sale segment in order to conceal the loss incurred by the assessee in advertisement sale segment as discussed in paras 5.2 and 5.3.4 of this order. (c) The assessee had incurred loss in advertisement sale segment due to change in business and compensation model in the year which was unduly favorable to the AE and against the assessee as discussed in para 5.3.4. (d) Since the assessee had selected comparables engaged in distribution business to benchmark margin of distinct and separate advertisement sale segment after merging the same with distribution business, the transfer pricing approach of the assessee was rejected and financials of the advertisements sales business segment as reported in audited accounts were used for comparability analysis and benchmarking of the profit ignoring merged financials of both distribution and advertisement segments. (e) It is a peculiar case where the assessee has adjusted the loss of advertisement segment against the profit of distribution segment by deliberating merging two distinct and separate audited segments and had benchmarked the margin of advertisement segment with the comparable ESPN Software India Ltd. engaged in different line of business i.e. distribution business segment. (f) For the afore stated reasons a new search was undertaken and to identify comparables of advertisement segment and comparability analysis was made to determine the margin of advertisement segment separately as discussed in paras 6 to 6.3 and 8 to 8.9 of this order. (g) In this case the AE of the assessee was located in low tax country i.e. Mauritius. The AE by entering into an agreement with the assessee transferred all the functions and risk on the issue, due to which it incurred loss against the profit in earlier years and corresponding income was shifted to the low tax country. (h) A finding that the assessee could not have incurred any loss on the advertisement sale business is corroborated with the fact that in old business model the assessee had earned profit @16% of total advertisement sale proceeds in immediately preceding year. It is also noted from comparable companies that these were earning substantial margin.”

11.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the two activities i.e. sale of air time for advertisement and distribution of channels were closely inter twined ESPN Software India Ltd. functionally and also the business model of the assessee used the same set of assets for carrying out those activities and that the business model of the assessee was structured in such a way that the profit was maximized as a whole rather than independently in these two activities and the popularity of the channel depended on various factors. It was further stated that when there were big ticket cricketing activities the channel earned more advertisement revenue, the subscription for the channel also went up and in the lean period where not much of high profile cricketing activity was happening the revenue from sale of air time came down. It was further stated that the distribution of the channel depended on such popular sports events. It was contended that due to the regulatory framework in India, the assessee bought the distribution rights for the channel as well as air time for advertisement from its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and distributed the same to the cable operators and also direct to home operators (like Tata Sky, Dish TV etc.). It was submitted that in case of channel rights and to general advertisers (like consumer product companies, Pepsi, Coke etc.) and in case of air time sale, higher the number of viewers, the rate for the air time will be higher, in other words, the viewership and advertisement revenue from air time sale were directly related. Therefore, the functions of those two activities were closely connected and need to be clubbed together for benchmarking the international transaction. The assessee also raised objections for the use of the comparables selected by the ESPN Software India Ltd. TPO in the sale of air time segment. The main objection was in using Sun TV Network as comparable. The submission of the assessee as reproduced in para 5.5 of the impugned order were as under: “The Appellant would like to submit to your Honour that it is unable to find the Annual Report of this company for the year under reference (i.e. FY 2004-05) and has been able to find only the Annual Report for FY 2005-06. In view of the same and during the time of the assessment proceedings, the Appellant requested the Ld. TPO to provide the annual report of this company for FY 2004-05. However, the Ld. TPO did not give due consideration to this contention of the Appellant and failed to provide the annual report of this company. Different Functional Profile: However, on perusal of the Annual Report of the Company for FY 2005-06, it can be seen that Sun TV is primarily engaged in producing and broad casting satellite television software programming in the regional languages of southern India. This fact is evident from the following excerpt from the Annual Report of this company: "The Company has an extensive programming content, including one of the largest movie libraries in India. It has internal production capabilities, which enable us to develop new programming quickly and efficiently catering to the local preferences.” "The Company engages in producing and broadcasting satellite television software programming in the regional languages of southern India predominantly to viewers in India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, United Kingdom, United States and Australia. The Company's flagship ESPN Software India Ltd. channel is Sun TV. The other satellite channels of the Company are Surya TV, Kiran TV, Sun News, Sun Music and KTV. The Company is also into the business of FM Radio broadcasting in Chennai, Coimbatore and Tirunelveli." From the above it can be seen that the company is predominantly catering to viewers in India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, United Kingdom, United States and Australia. The Company's flagship channel is Sun TV. The company also has a number of satellite channels, viz., Surya TV, Kiran TV, Sun News, Sun Music and KTV. Further, the Company is also into the business of FM Radio broadcasting in Channel, Coimbatore and Trunelveli. Moreover, it is also evident that the company has an internal production team to develop new programs. Further this company also owns the channel and has plans to launch new channels and FM Radio stations across the country. From the perusal of annual report of the company, it is also observed that this company also has advertisement income. However, segmental of advertisement income is not available in the annual report. The Ld. TPO has gone on to compare the distribution of advertisements activity undertaken by the appellant with channel owning companies. It is like comparing the business operations of a distributor of Mercedes with the Mercedes car itself owning significant intellectual property. Accordingly, the business profile of the appellant is quite different from the above company. In view of the above this company is functionally not comparable with the distribution function of the Appellant under the distribution ESPN Software India Ltd. function of the appellant under the advertisement airtime inventory business segment. Owns intangibles: On going through the annual report of the Company, it is also observed that this company owns intangible assets in the form of right for the broadcast of films and serials and licenses. From the perusal of the same, it can be observed that the ratio of intangible assets to total fixed assets, owned by the Company, as on April 1, 2005, is 22.23%. The details of the same are as follows: Table 8 - Percentage of Intangible Assets to Total Assets Particulars Amount (In Million) Film and Program Broadcasting Rights 659.2 Computer Software 2.8 Total intangible assets 662.00 Total fixed assets 2,978.10 Intangible assets as a percentage of total 22.23% fixed assets Accordingly, quite evidently, even the asset profile of the company is completely different to that of the appellant's advertisement airtime inventory business. In this regard, the appellant relies on the following observation made by the Hon'ble Bench in the Sony Ruling: Comments about differences on account of possessing research and development as also valuable, intangible are applicable in this case. The taxpayer unlike VIL does not have an advantage of R&D unit or valuable intangible on which it can always expect some reasonable returns.

16.

Now the department is in appeal. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the AO and the TPO and further submitted that the assessee in its transfer pricing report had merged two audited separate business ESPN Software India Ltd. segment i.e. distribution business segment and sale of air time advertisement in order to conceal the loss incurred by the assessee in advertisement sale segment. It was also stated that in earlier years, in the advertisement sale segment there was a profit however in the year under consideration the assessee had shown loss. Therefore, these two business segment should not have been clubbed. It was further submitted that the assessee over stated purchase price of advertisement inventory by Rs.19,14,48,497/- which was rightly added by the AO for the reason that the assessee had adjusted the loss of advertisement segment against the profit of distribution segment by deliberately merging two distinct and separate audited segment and benchmarked the margin of advertisement segment with the comparable engaged in different line of business i.e. distribution business segment. It was also stated that the AE of the assessee was located in low tax country i.e. Mauritius and the AE by entering into an agreement with the assessee transferred all the functions and risk on the issue, due to which it incurred loss against the profit earned in earlier years and corresponding income was shifted to the low tax country. It was also pointed out that in old business model the assessee had earned profit @ 16% of the total advertisement sale proceeds in immediately preceding year but for the year under consideration the assessee had shown the loss. It was also submitted that the assessee had choosen the wrong comparables and the TPO selected the companies which were comparable to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. ITA No. 2059/Del/2012 ESPN Software India Ltd. CIT(A) was not justified in directing to exclude the company M/s Sun TV Ltd. and M/s Empire Industries Ltd. from the list of the comparables.

17.

In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that prior to financial year 2004-05 relevant to the assessment year consideration, the assessee operated as a commission agent for its AE wherein it solicited advertisements in the Indian market and was at the option of the AE. Accordingly, the limited functions were formed by the assessee, the remuneration for the commission provided in respect of advertising sales inventory business was a fixed percentage of the net billings achieved by the AE from such advertisements. However, w.e.f. 01.04.2004, the assessee shifted to the distribution model pursuant to the change in foreign regulations of the RBI under which the assessee was engaged in acquisition of advertisement air time from its AE for further allotment to third parties in India as an entrepreneur. It was emphasized that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has formulated several guidelines that Indian companies engaged in downlinking of foreign channels must have both the channel subscription rights and also to sell the advertisement air time inventory on the same. It was stated that in this regard downlinking Guidelines Number 13/2/2002- BP&L/BC-IV were issued on 11.11.2005 and according to those guidelines, if the respondent decided to relinquish advertisement air time ITA No. 2059/Del/2012 ESPN Software India Ltd. inventory rights on account of losses, it would also have to relinquish the subscription rights to the channel which have resulted in profits. Hence, the regulatory requirement established unambiguously that the arm’s length analysis of both the channel subscription and air time sale segment must be done on an aggregated basis. Therefore, the assessee also aggregated both the distribution segment and the advertisement air time inventory distribution segment. It was further submitted that the TPO failed to appreciate that the liberalized regulatory requirement allowed the assessee to evaluate its business prospects and allowed it to operate in the best suitable way to its business and commercial needs. It was further submitted that in the conduct of its distribution activities, the assessee approached advertisers/sponsors, conducted negotiations finalized the pricing and recovered the sales proceeds from the customers on its own accord. It was further submitted that under the distributor model, the assessee was free to accept any advertiser/sponsor and negotiate prices based on its business fundamentals (without any involvement of the AE). Hence, under this business model, the assessee operated as a full risk distributor and undertook all the related business functions and risks in connection with its allotment of advertisement air time inventory in India. It was pointed out that willingness of the advertisers/sponsors to buy advertisement air time was dependent on the number and the type of sports events broadcasted on the assessee’s sports channels. Our attention was drawn towards chart showing the ESPN Software India Ltd. trend of the revenue and profitability of the assessee air time inventory and distribution activity over the period starting from FY 2004-05 to FY 2009-10 which read as under: FY 2005-06 FY 2004-05 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Ad Sales Segment 1. ICC 1. Asia Cup 1. England-India Champions Trophy in South Africa 2. 2O:20 2. Bangladesh - World Cup India-WI-Zim 2. CL T-20 3. England-India 3. Australia-India Names of India 1. Asia Cup 1. Zimbabwe - Cricket Events 1. South Africa- India India 4. Australia- 3. 20:20 World India-Sri Lanka Cup 5. Asia Cup-On Air 6. Asia Cup-On Ground Sales 1369213236 1195149126 3629085246 489620318 3073013927 984155054 1,17.93,47,671 1,08,34,79,520 3,16,46,52,589 42,49,03,708 2,56,69,29,642 79,78,19,517 Payment for Advertisement slot Gross Profit 18,98,65,565 11,16,69,606 46,44,32,657 6,47,16,610 50,60,84,285 18,63,35,537 13-87% 13.22% 9-34% 16.47% 18.93% 12.80% Gross Profit / Sales Total Cost (TC) 1,379,925,586 577-840,854 1,213,869,489 2,790,861,320 948,837,192 3-380,355,508 -10,712,350 -88,220,536 -18720363 282152608 35317863 248729738 Operating Profit / (Loss) OP/Sales -0.78% -18.02% -1.57% 9.18% 3.59% 6.85% ESPN Software India Ltd.

18.

On the basis of the aforesaid chart, it was stated that there was direct correlation between the number of cricket events involving India and the advertisement air time revenue earned by the assessee. It was further stated that in the initial years the assessee suffered net losses in its distribution business however, in FY 2007-08 onwards, the assessee had booked substantial profits on account of healthy revenues in its advertisement air time inventory business. Therefore, on account of loss incurred in the year under consideration, the TPO was not justified in taking the distribution of channels segment separately from the distribution of advertisement air time inventory which deserves to be aggregated as has been done by the assessee. It was further submitted that on account of direct nexus and integration of the activities of the subscription and advertisement air time (as they were driven towards the same end of promotion of channels), they were aggregated and benchmarked together. It was stated that keeping in view the integrated economics, business dynamics and functionality, distribution of channels and sale of advertisement air time inventory had been aggregated, both of them collectively derived business operations of the assessee. It was further stated that higher the subscriber base of a channel, the greater are the chances of aired advertisements being viewed by a large target audience. So there is a direct positive relationship between the viewership base and the advertisement air time inventory is a package deal, so it should be considered as one international transaction and ESPN Software India Ltd. needs to be aggregated. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: � N.G.C Network ((India) P. Ltd. (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 240 (Bom) � Knorr Bremse India P. Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 307 (P&H) 19. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in accepting the stand of the assessee for aggregation of activities. As regards to the exclusion of M/s Sun TV Network India Ltd. and M/s Empire Industries ltd. which were selected by the TPO as comparable, it was stated that M/s Sun TV Network India Ltd. is primarily engaged in producing and broadcasting satellite television software in the regional languages of southern India and the said company is also into the business of FM Radio broadcasting in Chennai, Coimbatore and Trunelveli and has an internal production team to develop new programmes and the segmental of advertisement income is not available in its annual report. Therefore, the business profile of the assessee is totally different from that of M/s Sun TV Network India Ltd. and it is not functionally comparable with the distribution function of the assessee under the advertisement air time business segment. It was also stated that the said company M/s Sun TV Network India Ltd. also owns intangible assets in the form of right for the broadcasting films and serials and that the ratio of intangible assets to the total assets as on 01.04.2005 was 22.23% as per following details: ESPN Software India Ltd. Particulars Amount (In crores) Film and Program Broadcasting Rights 65.92 Computer Software 0.28 Total intangible assets 66.20 Total fixed assets 2,97.81 Intangible assets as a percentage of total 22.23% fixed assets It was submitted that the company M/s Sun TV Network India Ltd. should not be considered as comparable to the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) rightly held so. As regards to the another company M/s Empire Industries Ltd., it was stated that the said company was engaged in the manufacturing of glass bottles for the pharmaceutical industry and held three segments, namely, manufacturing, trading & indenting and educational programmes. Therefore, the functional profile of the assessee cannot be compared with the said company and the ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to exclude this company also from the list of the comparables.

20.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, the main controversy to be resolved relates to the aggregation of the activities, namely, distribution of channels segment and sale of air time inventory segment. The main reason given by the TPO/AO for not accepting the aggregation of the two activities was that in the advertisement air time inventory, there was a loss in the year ESPN Software India Ltd. under consideration while in the earlier years the assessee was earning the profit. In the present case, it is noticed that activities of distribution of channels and advertisement air time inventory allotment are inter- related because higher the subscriber base of channel, the greater are chances of the aired advertisement being viewed by a large target audience because the advertisers want the widest possible coverage to their messages and both the activities i.e. subscription and advertisement air time drive towards the same end of promotion of channels. As regards to the objection of the TPO/AO that there was a loss in the advertisement air time inventory business in the year under consideration while in the earlier year there was profit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that in the earlier years the assessee was acting only as a commission agent for its AE and solicited advertisements in the Indian market for its AE for that purpose the assessee was getting a fixed percentage of commission while for the year under consideration and in the succeeding years, the assessee shifted to the distribution model in pursuant to the change in the foreign exchange regulations of the RBI vide Circular No. 76 which relaxed the condition of export earnings by advertisers in Foreign Television Channels and the assessee, without prior approval from RBI, could have bought air time on a bulk basis and allot the same directly to third parties i.e. advertisement agencies etc. It is also noticed that Ministry of Information and Broadcasting formulated several guidelines vide ESPN Software India Ltd. Downlinking Guidelines Number 13/2/2002-BP&L/BC-IV dated 11.11.2005. The said guidelines were as under: “1.3 The applicant company must either own the channel it wants downlinked for public viewing, or must enjoy, for the territory of India, exclusive marketing/distribution rights for the same, inclusive of the rights to the advertising and subscription revenues for the channel and must submit adequate proof at the time of application. 1.4 In case the applicant company has exclusive marketing / distribution rights, it should also have the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the channel for advertisements, subscription and programme content."

2. The Hon'ble DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,75,41,007 to the income of the appellant by holding that its international transaction of 'purchase of advertisement airtime inventory does not satisfy the arm's length principle envisaged under the Act. In doing so the Hon'ble DRP has grossly erred in agreeing with the Ld. TPO's action of: 2.1. segregating the 'advertisement airtime inventory' distribution and 'channel distribution' business of the appellant, without appreciating the fact that in both these businesses the appellant carries out integrated distribution activities, that cannot be analyzed separately for the purpose of benchmarking analysis, 2.2. disregarding the arm's length price ('ALP') and the methodical benchmarking process carried out by the appellant in the Transfer Pricing (TP') documentation maintained by it in terms of section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules'); 2.3. failure to appreciate the commercial expediency/ business rationale for the distribution model followed by the appellant in respect of its advertisement airtime inventory business, 2.4. failure to appreciate the business/ commercial reasons for the loss incurred by the appellant in its advertisement airtime inventory business, 2.5. failure to appreciate the fact that the international transaction of purchase of advertisement airtime inventory was at arm's length even by applying the Resale Price Method, ESPN Software India Ltd. which was applied by the appellant as an alternative method and on a without prejudice basis, 2.6. disregarding multiple year/ prior years' data as used by the appellant in the TP documentation report and holding that current year (i.e., FY 2005-06) data for comparable companies should be used despite the fact that the same was not available to the appellant at the time of preparing its TP documentation, 2.7. grossly violating the principles of natural justice by disregarding the comparable companies identified by the appellant after undertaking a fresh search using data for FY 2005-06 and arbitrarily including companies in the comparable set used to benchmark the appellants purchase of advertisement airtime inventory, 2.8. resorting to arbitrary and mechanical selection of companies merely based on the companies selected in the TP Order of AY 2005-06, and in doing so have grossly erred in selecting in the final set, companies such as Sun TV Ltd. and Mid-day Multimedia Ltd. which are having a Functions Asset Risk ('FAR') profile different from the appellant's pure distribution activities and thus not comparable as per the principles of comparability as enunciated in the transfer pricing regulations, and 2.9. denying the appellant the benefit of a working capital adjustment.