Functional comparability controls transfer pricing comparables, with product companies excluded and section 10A interest deduction sent back for verification.

Functional comparability remains the controlling test in transfer pricing, so a company earning substantially different exhibition and event income was excluded from marketing support services comparables, while objections to other proposed exclusions failed. In the software development segment, product or mixed product-service entities were held not functionally comparable to a captive service provider, leading to exclusion of KALS Information Systems Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Acropetal Technologies Ltd., while E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Evoke Technologies Ltd. and E-Infochips Ltd. were retained as comparables. Deduction under section 10A on interest from fixed deposits depended on factual proof of business nexus, so the matter was remitted for verification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the marketing support services comparables were correctly selected and whether Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Ltd. was liable to be excluded while the objections regarding certain other comparables were to be accepted or rejected; (ii) Whether KALS Information Systems Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Acropetal Technologies Ltd. were comparable to the software development services segment and whether E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Evoke Technologies Ltd. and E-Infochips Ltd. were liable to be included; (iii) Whether deduction under section 10A could be claimed on interest income from fixed deposits, and if so on what factual basis.

Issue (i): Whether the marketing support services comparables were correctly selected and whether Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Ltd. was liable to be excluded while the objections regarding certain other comparables were to be accepted or rejected.

Analysis: Functional comparability is the first and basic test for selecting comparables. Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Ltd. derived substantially different income from exhibition and event activities, including sale or lease of stall space and related receipts, which could not be equated with the assessee's marketing support services. The sharp fluctuation in its operating margins during the year also indicated abnormal conditions. The assessee was therefore not barred from challenging its inclusion merely because it had been initially chosen in the transfer pricing study. The objections to exclusion of Cyber Media (India) Ltd., Asian Industry & Information Services Pvt. Ltd., Crystal Hues Ltd., Hansa Vision Pvt. Ltd., Denave India Pvt. Ltd. and Sadhna Media Pvt. Ltd. did not succeed on the record.

Conclusion: Asian Business Exhibition and Conferences Ltd. was directed to be excluded from the final set of comparables, while the other objections in this segment were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether KALS Information Systems Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Acropetal Technologies Ltd. were comparable to the software development services segment and whether E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Evoke Technologies Ltd. and E-Infochips Ltd. were liable to be included.

Analysis: A company engaged in software product or mixed product-service activity is not functionally comparable to a captive software development service provider. KALS Information Systems Ltd. and Thirdware Solutions Ltd. were found to be engaged in software product or product-cum-service functions, and Acropetal Technologies Ltd. was engaged in design engineering or materially different activities. On the other hand, E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Evoke Technologies Ltd. and E-Infochips Ltd. were accepted as functionally comparable on the facts and earlier Tribunal guidance, with no material change in their functioning shown.

Conclusion: KALS Information Systems Ltd., Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Acropetal Technologies Ltd. were directed to be excluded, and E-Zest Solutions Ltd., Evoke Technologies Ltd. and E-Infochips Ltd. were upheld as comparables.

Issue (iii): Whether deduction under section 10A could be claimed on interest income from fixed deposits, and if so on what factual basis.

Analysis: The entitlement to deduction depended on whether the fixed deposits were integrally connected with the business, such as margin money or deposits for availing credit facilities, or whether they were mere parking of surplus funds. The issue therefore required factual verification rather than a blanket allowance or rejection.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and fresh decision in accordance with the governing principle.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was modified by exclusion and inclusion of comparables as above, and the claim relating to section 10A interest deduction was sent back for reconsideration, resulting in partial relief to the assessee and dismissal of the Revenue's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing comparability, functional similarity is the controlling test, product companies are ordinarily not comparable with captive service providers, extraordinary margin volatility may justify exclusion, and deduction on interest income under section 10A depends on a proven business nexus.

---