Star India Private Limited v. ACIT-16(1), Mumbai

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Transfer pricing Special Bench: selection of most appropriate method for bundled sports broadcasting rights and ability to depart from earlier method.
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

Star India Private Limited, ACIT-16(1), Star House, Urmi Estate, Vs. Mumbai 95 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai 400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAACN1335Q Appellant Respondent

Assessee by Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate and Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate Revenue by Shri Vinod Tanwani

adopted by the predecessor Bench in the assessee’s own case for the

consideration the factual matrix of the case, proposed the following

“Whether on facts and in law, the Assessing Officer was justified in making transfer pricing adjustment anent to the international transaction of acquiring Bundle of Sport Broadcasting Rights, on the basis of deficiencies found by him in the valuation report submitted by the assessee?”

Appellant / assessee submissions

further argued that in any case, no CUP exists. In our view, the

35.2. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the CUP method requires

contended that recognition of the price paid by the assessee in terms

the projected financials, the coordinate bench in paragraph number 31 restored the issue to the assessing officer to ascertain the correctness of assessee‘s valuation reports by getting the valuation done through its own expert. This order was challenged by assessee before the honourable Bombay High Court. 18) For assessment year 2015-16, the learned transfer pricing officer passed order under section 92CA (3) of the act on 31/10/2018 holding that the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel for assessment year 2014 – 15 is applicable to the current year also. During the transfer pricing assessment proceedings, the statement of Shri Santosh Naga officer of Duff & Phelps was also recorded on 11/10/2018. Ld. TPO rejected the new Valuation report, expert opinion and actualization report, he concluded that new valuation reports submitted by the assessee.Accordingly, the total amount of international transaction reported in form No 3CEB of Rs. 30,752,415,714/–, its ALP determined at Rs. 10,437,369,893/– and thereby adjustment of Rs. 20,315,045,821/- was made. 19) In objection before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, assessee also argued over and above the arguments raised…

Revenue / respondent submissions

scope of arguments on behalf of the Revenue. The ld. DR took

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

conspectus of the case, the Tribunal held that valuation of the BSB

7. We have heard the rival submissions in extenso and gone

most appropriate method, the Hon’ble High Court held that the

Operative decision and relief

TPO during the remand proceedings. On consideration of the entire

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses Transfer pricing Special Bench: selection of most appropriate method for bundled sports broadcasting rights and ability to depart from earlier method. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with transfer pricing special bench: selection of most appropriate method for bundled sports broadcasting rights and ability to depart from earlier method. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT - ITAT Mumbai - I Bench
• SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V - Supreme Court of India
• PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF - Court / Tribunal to be verified

Different outcome / possible distinction

• ACIT CIR 6(1) VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - Remanded / restored
• ITO 32(2)(3) VS MAYUR R KAMDAR - Dismissed

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY