Transfer pricing comparables for software services refined: product companies excluded, CG-VAK retained, and working capital adjusted on verification.

In transfer pricing for software development services, Helios, FCS and e-Zest were excluded as comparables because Helios failed the turnover filter, FCS had mixed activities with no segmental data, and e-Zest was a product company. KALS was also excluded on the same functional mismatch, while Akshay was included. CG-VAK was retained because a single year loss, without abnormal circumstances, did not defeat comparability and segmental details were available. Working capital adjustment was remitted for fresh computation and allowance after verification, and the margin of Goldstone Technologies Ltd. was directed to be recomputed from the correct operating and segmental results.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Helios, FCS and e-Zest were to be excluded from the final set of comparables for software development services; (ii) whether KALS was to be excluded and Akshay was to be included in the final set of comparables; (iii) whether CG-VAK was to be included in the final set of comparables; (iv) whether working capital adjustment was to be granted; and (v) whether the margin of Goldstone Technologies Ltd. required recomputation for the later assessment year.

Issue (i): whether Helios, FCS and e-Zest were to be excluded from the final set of comparables for software development services

Analysis: Helios was outside the turnover filter applied by the transfer pricing authority and could not be retained merely on a variation theory. FCS was engaged in multiple lines of activity, with software development forming only a part of its revenue and no segmental profit details being available, making it functionally unsuitable for comparison with a captive software development service provider. e-Zest was treated as a product company and was functionally different from a pure software development service provider.

Conclusion: Helios, FCS and e-Zest were to be excluded from the final set of comparables.

Issue (ii): whether KALS was to be excluded and Akshay was to be included in the final set of comparables

Analysis: KALS was also treated as a product company and was therefore not comparable with a software development service provider. Akshay was accepted by the assessee as comparable for the relevant comparability set, and the objection to its inclusion was not pressed effectively.

Conclusion: KALS was rightly excluded and Akshay was to be included in the final set of comparables.

Issue (iii): whether CG-VAK was to be included in the final set of comparables

Analysis: CG-VAK was not shown to be a consistently loss-making company. A single year loss, without abnormal circumstances or persistent losses, did not justify exclusion when functional comparability otherwise existed. Prior years reflected positive margins, and segmental details were available.

Conclusion: CG-VAK was to be included in the final set of comparables.

Issue (iv): whether working capital adjustment was to be granted

Analysis: Working capital adjustment had been allowed in earlier years, and there was no sufficient basis recorded for its denial in the year under appeal. The proper computation required factual verification and recalculation by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation and allowance in accordance with law.

Issue (v): whether the margin of Goldstone Technologies Ltd. required recomputation for the later assessment year

Analysis: The margin adopted for Goldstone Technologies Ltd. had been computed on an incomplete basis by taking only part of the operations. Correct margins had to be determined from the relevant operating results and segmental data.

Conclusion: the Transfer Pricing Officer was directed to recompute the correct margin of Goldstone Technologies Ltd.

Final Conclusion: the comparables dispute was resolved substantially in favour of the assessee on exclusion and inclusion of the disputed companies, while the remaining issues were either restored for recomputation or adjusted on factual verification, leaving the cross appeals only partly successful on each side.

---