Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that , Comparision with high brand value and higher scale of operations and profit margin to be excluded . Comparables have to be functionally similar but they should have similar business environment and risks as the tested party . Court alos held   hat when rule 10B(2) was applied, i. e., the FAR analysis, namely, the functions performed, the assets owned and the risks assumed was deployed, the brand and high economic upscale fell within the domain of “assets”. This also would make both these comparables in question, TCSESL and TCSESIL unsuitable as comparables to the assessee in determining the arm’s length price under S. 92C  of the Act . Accordingly the order of the Tribunal and the corresponding orders of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the TPO also set aside. (AY. 2010-11)