Tribunal directs re-work of arm's length price, considers adjustments, reviews TDS credit, dismisses Sections 234B & 234C.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the TPO/Assessing Officer to re-work the arm's length price of international transactions, consider working capital and risk adjustments, and delete the addition for non-reconciliation of ITS details. The Tribunal also instructed the AO to review the TDS credit application. Issues of interest under Sections 234B and 234C were deemed consequential and dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment
2. Rejection of Economic Analysis by Assessee
3. Benchmarking Analysis Rejection
4. Exclusion of Loss-Making Comparables
5. Exclusion of Companies with Super Normal Profits
6. Computation of Operating Margin for Creative Eye Ltd.
7. Comparable Segment for In House Productions Ltd.
8. Working Capital Adjustment
9. Risk Adjustment
10. Adjustment to Arm's Length Price
11. Addition on Non-Reconciliation of ITS Details
12. Insufficient Information for ITS Reconciliation
13. Short Credit of TDS
14. Levy of Interest under Section 234B
15. Levy of Interest under Section 234C

Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer Pricing Adjustment:
The learned AO made a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 34,185,321 under Section 92C(4) of the Act to the total income of the appellant for AY 2008-09. The TPO determined the arm's length operating margin for the international transaction of support and supply of content to be 22.55% and for general management support services to be 13.26%.

2. Rejection of Economic Analysis by Assessee:
The TPO/AO did not accept the economic analysis undertaken by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The TPO rejected the appellant's benchmarking analysis for its international transactions, particularly for the supply and support of content and provision of general management support services.

3. Benchmarking Analysis Rejection:
The TPO/AO rejected the appellant's benchmarking analysis maintained under Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D(4) of the Rules. The TPO used only the updated Financial Year 2007-08 operating margins of the comparable companies available at the time of the assessment.

4. Exclusion of Loss-Making Comparables:
The TPO/AO excluded loss-making comparables while determining the arm's length operating margin for the international transaction of supply and support of content. The Tribunal directed the inclusion of Twenty Twenty Television Company Ltd., which was excluded by the TPO for incurring an operating loss. The Tribunal noted that the concern was not a persistent loss-maker.

5. Exclusion of Companies with Super Normal Profits:
The appellant argued that companies earning super normal profits should be excluded if loss-making companies are excluded. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as other adjustments brought the appellant's margin within the acceptable range.

6. Computation of Operating Margin for Creative Eye Ltd.:
The TPO/AO erred in computing the operating margin of Creative Eye Ltd. The Tribunal found an inconsistency in the TPO's calculation and directed the margin to be corrected to 0.47% instead of 7.33%.

7. Comparable Segment for In House Productions Ltd.:
The TPO/AO considered the 'media division' as the comparable segment instead of the 'health care division' for In House Productions Ltd. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as other adjustments brought the appellant's margin within the acceptable range.

8. Working Capital Adjustment:
The TPO/AO did not allow the appellant the benefit of the working capital adjustment. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim for working capital adjustment and directed the TPO/Assessing Officer to consider the same.

9. Risk Adjustment:
The TPO/AO did not allow the appellant the benefit of the risk adjustment. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim for risk adjustment and directed the TPO/Assessing Officer to consider the same.

10. Adjustment to Arm's Length Price:
The appellant argued that any adjustment to the arm's length price should be limited to the lower end of the 5 percent range. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue as other adjustments brought the appellant's margin within the acceptable range.

11. Addition on Non-Reconciliation of ITS Details:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 77,13,648 on account of non-reconciliation of ITS details. The Tribunal found that the ITS details were insufficient for the appellant to undertake a reconciliation and deleted the addition.

12. Insufficient Information for ITS Reconciliation:
The appellant argued that the information provided by the AO was insufficient for reconciliation. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant and deleted the addition.

13. Short Credit of TDS:
The AO erred in granting short credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 2,60,19,233. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the application of the appellant for TDS credit in accordance with the law.

14. Levy of Interest under Section 234B:
The AO levied interest under Section 234B amounting to Rs. 35,59,140. The Tribunal noted that the levy of interest is consequential and did not specifically address the issue.

15. Levy of Interest under Section 234C:
The AO levied interest under Section 234C amounting to Rs. 3,74,452. The Tribunal noted that the levy of interest is consequential and did not specifically address the issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the TPO/Assessing Officer to re-work the arm's length price of the international transactions in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and to consider the appellant's claims for working capital and risk adjustments. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of non-reconciliation of ITS details and directed the AO to consider the application for TDS credit. The issues of interest under Sections 234B and 234C were noted as consequential and dismissed.

---