Learned counsel very earnestly argued that the CCI was incorrect in firstly deciding upon the relevant market and secondly on the aspect of the respondent being a dominant player in the market. The learned counsel wanted to rely on the prospectus of the respondent which, in our view, would be an irrelevant document to decide the dominance in the market. The informant was expected to point out as to how the respondent enjoyed the dominant position in the market, by collection of evidence and the facts. That unfortunately seems not to have been done by the informant. We cannot find fault, under the circumstances, with the finding of the CCI that the respondent was not enjoying the dominant position in the market. Once that factual position is arrived at, there will be no question of contravention of Section 4 of the Act. If the respondent was not dominant, there was no question of the abuse of dominance.
In this case, it is found that a consumer interested in buying an iPhone is tied to one of the two mobile networks i.e. Airtel or Vodafone. It is worth noting that at the time of launch of iPhone in India, Apple did not have an outlet to sell its iPhone, a high-end smartphone. Instead of investing money on creating sales and service outlet and incurring advertisement expenditure, Apple’s strategy was to have tactical agreement with network operators, possibly the best partners for selling mobile handsets. This arrangement also helped Apple in gauging the public perception for iPhone before actually selling iPhone through its own retail stores. The mobile network companies who spent money on creating distribution channel and incurring advertisement expenditure wanted the iPhone to be locked-in for some period so that they would be able to recoup their investment over a period of time.
Coming to the issue regarding ICC International, we find that assessee has demonstrated, as noted earlier, that it had earned super profits during the year because of increase in supply on account of government scheme. We find that TPO has considered the assessee’s objection regarding exclusion of high margin comparables in para 8.7 of his order and the DRP in para 7.1. They have merely, inter alia, observed that comparables cannot be rejected simply because they are loss or high profit making comparables. However, they have not considered that if certain extraordinary factors materially affected the profit in a particular year then that aspects had to be taken into consideration and due adjustment was required to be made to the net profit margin for brining the comparable on the same platform at which the assessee was performing its functions.
The proposition that gain on foreign exchange if it relates to the business of the assessee is part and parcel of operating income is well established by the afore-mentioned decisions of the coordinate benches. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the gain made by the assessee on fluctuation of foreign exchange was not on account of business transactions of the assessee. In absence of any such material, following the afore-mentioned decisions of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the foreign exchange gain of the assessee is to be considered as part and parcel of the profit of the assessee and therefore should be included for the purpose of computing the profit margin of the assessee.
In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Smt.Baljinder Kaur [2009] 29 SOT 9 (URO), wherein it has been held that it is a well settled proposition that the concept of ‘fair market value’ envisages existence of hypothetical seller and hypothetical buyer, in a hypothetical market. Therefore, determination of fair market value of capital asset, as on 1.4.1981, would involve a judgement of estimation, based on relevant factors.
The first comparable taken by the TPO is CRISL Research and Information Services Ltd. The said comparable is common as the assessee has also selected the same in its original TP study. Though CRISL Ltd is basically a rating agency; however, since the segment results relating to the research activity has been taken into consideration; therefore, the other activity being rating agency does not effect the comparability solely because of this fact. The ld Sr counsel for the assessee has pointed out that about 60% of the income of the CRISL Ltd is from the related party transactions. This is a material fact that has to be considered for the purpose of selecting the uncontrolled comparable transactions as per sec. 92C(1) r.w.r 10B(1)(e) for the purpose of determination of ALP.
The next question that arises is that as to the allocation, if so, of the expenditure, when the returns as per the investment strategy adopted is toward and, consequently, bound to be earned under different income heads, being ‘capital gains’ and ‘income from other sources’ in the instant case, and while being allowable in one case (the latter), is not so under the other (the former).
In this case Assessing Officer proposed to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, while there was full and true disclosure on part of the petitioner during original assessment. With respect to the first issue of discount/commission, the Assessing Officer called for the details of such payments in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs. Such details were promptly provided. No further questions arose from the Assessing Officer in this regard. Like-wise, during the assessment, the Assessing Officer also called upon the petitioner to supply full details of the roaming charges paid to various telecom operators. Such details were also made available.
No. LAD-NRO/GN/2013-14/04/5655.– In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Board has established its Local Office at Lucknow under the administrative control of its Northern Regional Office at New Delhi.
Circular is issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities market.
