S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The question of law urged by the Revenue is that the ITAT fell into error in clubbing of two distinct revenue streams i.e. sale of air time with distribution business, advertisements, sale business, etc. The TPO was of the opinion that both sets of businesses were separate and distinct and could not have been clubbed. The assessee had urged that the clubbing of these transactions for Arm’s Length Price (ALP) determination had been permitted in the past. It relied upon common features to contend that whereas in sale of airtime, it was bulk sale of the product/service to the concerned customer, i.e. the air time user, distribution too involves sale through a network. The TPO’s rejection of the aggregation, for ALP determination was appealed against.

2. The CIT (A) was of the opinion that both segments were appropriately clubbed for the purposes of benchmarking international transactions and cited two reasons. Firstly, that were closely related and that popularity of a channel had bearing on the subscription as well as sale of airtime for advertisement. It was felt that both businesses mutually reinforced each other. If the channel fails to air popular