Tribunal held that under section 92CA of the Act, the Joint Commissioner has been authorised to pass the order as Transfer Pricing Officer. A Joint Commissioner has been defined under section 2(28C) of the Act to mean a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner or an Additional Commissioner in terms of section 117(1) of the Act. Therefore, Joint Commissioner includes the Additional Commissioner also and the assessee’s objection to his jurisdiction was not tenable. As regards comparbles,   where the standalone balance-sheet of the comparable company showed that it was functionally similar to the assessee, it may not be rejected for comparison analysis.  Where the  extraordinary events such as amalgamation of the comparable company would have impacted the profitability of the comparable company was not a valid argument since the effective date of amalgamation was April 1, 2008 and the financial year under consideration was 2009-10 and, therefore, there was no impact of amalgamation during the relevant year. Moreover, merger with another entity carrying on a functionally similar business does not have any impact on the profitability of the comparable. Where the comparable company had undergone an amalgamation in the relevant year but the operations of the amalgamated company were functionally similar to the comparable company and all shares of that company were owned by the comparable company, as there was no functional dissimilarity between the two companies, the event of amalgamation did not have any impact on the profitability margin.  Where  very large turnover more than 20 times that of the assessee-company, was a ground on which the company could not be treated as a comparable and was to be excluded. The Transfer Pricing Officer was directed to determine the arm’s length price afresh in terms of the above directions. (AY. 2010-11)