Transfer pricing comparables must match functions, related party thresholds, and relevant-year data; section 10A exemption does not defeat adjustment.

Comparables used in transfer pricing benchmarking must satisfy the adopted related party transaction filter on a correct base, be functionally similar, and rely on data for the relevant financial year; on those grounds, several comparables in the IT services segment were found unsuitable and the arm's length price was directed to be reworked. In the IT-enabled services segment, some comparables were remitted or excluded for similar reasons, including higher-end KPO/LPO characteristics and intermediary business models, while other comparables were retained where dissimilarity was not established. The objection that no transfer pricing adjustment could survive because the assessee's income was exempt under section 10A was rejected, as the transfer pricing regime operates independently of that exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether certain comparables selected for benchmarking the assessee's IT services segment were liable to be excluded on account of defective application of the related party transaction filter, functional dissimilarity, and use of data not pertaining to the relevant financial year. (ii) Whether certain comparables selected for benchmarking the assessee's IT-enabled services segment were liable to be excluded or included on the basis of related party transactions, functional profile, segmental analysis, and the claim that no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted because the assessee's income was exempt under section 10A.

Issue (i): Whether certain comparables selected for benchmarking the assessee's IT services segment were liable to be excluded on account of defective application of the related party transaction filter, functional dissimilarity, and use of data not pertaining to the relevant financial year.

Analysis: The adjustment in the IT services segment was challenged principally on the selection of comparables. The related party transaction filter was applied incorrectly in respect of FCS Software Solutions Ltd. and Compucom Software Ltd., because the percentage had been computed on an inappropriate base, which understated the related party transactions beyond the threshold adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer. KALS Information Systems Ltd. (segment) and Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd. were found to be functionally incomparable with the assessee's IT services activity, particularly because the record did not show any material change from the earlier year when they had not been treated as comparables. ICSA (India) Ltd. was also found unsuitable because the research and development expenditure filter had been misapplied by comparing segmental expenditure with total turnover instead of the relevant segment alone. Transworld Infotech Ltd. was held to be excludible because the data relied upon did not relate to the financial year in which the international transaction was entered into, contrary to the applicable comparability rule.

Conclusion: The exclusion objections in the IT services segment were substantially accepted and the arm's length price for that segment was directed to be reworked.

Issue (ii): Whether certain comparables selected for benchmarking the assessee's IT-enabled services segment were liable to be excluded or included on the basis of related party transactions, functional profile, segmental analysis, and the claim that no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted because the assessee's income was exempt under section 10A.

Analysis: In the IT-enabled services segment, CMC Ltd. (segment) was remitted for fresh examination because the computation of related party transactions and the base applied for the 25% filter required reconsideration. Apex Advanced Technology Pvt. Ltd. was retained because its database-related business was not shown to be materially different from the assessee's outsourcing-based support activity. Vishal Information Technologies Ltd. was excluded because its functional profile, related party transactions, and intermediary nature of operations showed it to be qualitatively different from the assessee's back-office support services. Vishesh Infotechnics Ltd. (segment) was excluded because it rendered high-end KPO and LPO services, which were not comparable with routine IT-enabled support services, and its extraordinary margin reinforced that difference. Informed Technologies India Ltd. was retained because the assessee did not establish that the profit pattern or business profile rendered it incomparable. The plea that no transfer pricing adjustment should survive because the assessee's income was exempt under section 10A was rejected, as the transfer pricing regime operates independently of such exemption.

Conclusion: The IT-enabled services segment was partly remanded, partly allowed, and partly sustained, with the section 10A-based objection rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on several comparability objections in both segments, resulting in reworking of the arm's length price for the relevant international transactions, while some comparables and the section 10A-based challenge were upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A comparable must be excluded where related party transactions cross the adopted threshold on a correct transactional base, where the functional profile is materially dissimilar, or where the data does not pertain to the relevant financial year; transfer pricing adjustments are not displaced merely because the assessee's income may otherwise be exempt under section 10A.

---