Transfer pricing comparability for software supply and applicability of arithmetic mean proviso when only one comparable exists

Transfer pricing assessment concerned determination of arm's length price for cross-border software supply. The transactional net margin method was adopted after cost-plus documentation was inadequate; comparability analysis under rule 10C excluded four alleged comparables as operating in different lines of business, leaving a single comparable. The proviso allowing the arithmetical mean (or assessee's 5% variation) applies only when more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method; it therefore did not apply here, and the ALP was fixed based on the sole comparable, resulting in dismissal of the revenue appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the persons/companies selected as comparables by the TPO and confirmed/excluded by the CIT(A) were valid comparables for determining ALP under rule 10C(2) and 10C(3); (ii) Whether adjustments for working capital, risk and other factors under rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) / 10B(3)(ii) were permissible and available to the assessee on the facts; (iii) Whether the proviso to section 92C(2) permitting +/-5% variation applied; (iv) Disposal of the stay application and final relief on the cross appeals.

Issue (i): Validity of comparables selected for determining ALP.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the financials, business models, segmental composition and functions of the companies contested (Kushal Software Ltd., Tera Software Ltd., Sark Systems India Ltd., Datamatics Technology Ltd., Teledata Informatics Ltd., Soffia Software Ltd. etc.) against the assessee's function of software development for Vedaris UK. Differences in primary business activity (trading/BPO/project development versus software development), absence of segmental data, differing geographic markets and functional profiles were assessed against rule 10C(2) and rule 10C(3) criteria.

Conclusion: Majority of the comparables selected by the TPO were not acceptable; only Soffia Software Ltd. qualified as a valid comparable for determining ALP.

Issue (ii): Entitlement to adjustments for working capital, risk and other factors under rule 10B(1)(e)(iii) / 10B(3)(ii).

Analysis: The Tribunal considered whether differences (such as interest-free advances from parent) materially affected net profit margins and whether reasonably accurate adjustments could be made. It noted established principles permitting adjustments where reasonably accurate quantification is possible, reliance on OECD guidance, and prior tribunal practice, but also noted the need for supporting data. The CIT(A) had refused adjustments for lack of reasonably accurate data; the Tribunal found the effect of advances warranted examination but that other ad hoc adjustments lacked supporting computation.

Conclusion: The question of working capital adjustment (impact of advances) is remitted to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration limited to comparables based on Soffia Software Ltd.; other ad hoc adjustments for risk/growth/R&D denied for lack of reasonably accurate computation.

Issue (iii): Applicability of proviso to section 92C(2) (±5% option available to assessee).

Analysis: The proviso applies only where more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method.

Conclusion: Proviso to section 92C(2) is inapplicable because only one comparable price (derived from a single valid comparable) was available.

Issue (iv): Stay application and final relief on appeals.

Analysis: The Tribunal recorded the stay application status and then addressed merits of the appeals, disposing of the cross-appeals in light of findings on comparability and remitting specific adjustment issue.

Conclusion: The stay application is dismissed; the assessee's appeal is partly allowed; the revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Final Conclusion: On the limited contested issues the Tribunal upheld only one comparable (Soffia Software Ltd.) for determining ALP, remitted the working-capital adjustment issue (limited to that comparable) to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision with opportunity to the assessee, rejected other ad hoc adjustments for lack of reasonably accurate computation and held the proviso to section 92C(2) inapplicable. The result is a partly favourable outcome for the assessee and dismissal of the revenue's cross-appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer-pricing under TNMM, comparability must be judged by functional, contractual and market characteristics under rule 10C; only comparables matching the assessee's functions and market conditions can be used to determine ALP, and adjustments under rule 10B are permissible only where reasonably accurate quantification (supported by data) of material differences is possible; where such quantification is lacking, the matter may be remitted for determination confined to valid comparables.

---