Transfer pricing comparables and export turnover treatment: tribunal finds no ALP adjustment and orders exclusion of foreign expenses.

Tribunal examined transfer pricing comparability and held that the taxpayer's profit-to-cost margin exceeded the arithmetic mean of selected comparables, so no arm's-length adjustment was warranted and the disputed addition was ordered deleted. The tribunal also addressed treatment of foreign currency expenses for export-linked tax incentives, applying precedent to require that expenditures excluded from export turnover must likewise be excluded from total turnover when computing the export deduction; the assessing officer was directed to reduce export and total turnover by travelling and internet charges. Relief was granted to the assessee on both points.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) determined by the TPO/DRP under section 92/92CA in respect of international transactions is sustainable; (ii) Whether specified foreign currency expenses (travel and internet charges) excluded from export turnover while computing deduction under section 10A must also be excluded from total turnover.

Issue (i): Whether the ALP adjustment of Rs.3,58,68,074 determined by the TPO/DRP is justified based on the comparables and related adjustments.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the set of comparables adopted by the TPO/DRP and the assessee's objections, applying established comparability principles including functional similarity, effect of extraordinary events, employee cost filter, presence of brand/intangibles, and outsourcing of activities. Several companies retained by the TPO were found to be functionally dissimilar or affected by extraordinary transactions (mergers/demergers), to have significant brand/intangible advantages, to operate as KPOs rather than routine ITES/BPO, or to outsource substantial operations. Applying these comparability criteria, the Tribunal excluded those companies and recalculated the arithmetic mean of the remaining comparables, finding the assessee's margin to be higher than the adjusted mean and therefore no ALP addition was necessary.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment to ALP sustained by the DRP is deleted and the addition is not sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the foreign currency expenses (travel and internet charges) excluded from export turnover for section 10A deduction should also be excluded from total turnover.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the binding decision of the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd., which holds that expenses excluded from export turnover for the purpose of section 10A must also be excluded from total turnover for computing the deduction.

Conclusion: The AO is directed to exclude the specified foreign currency travel and internet expenses from both export turnover and total turnover while computing deduction under section 10A in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's reasoning on comparability and application of precedent resulted in deletion of the transfer pricing addition and correction of section 10A computation; consequential relief (including on interest under sections 234B and 234D) is to be given by the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing under section 92/92CA, comparables must be functionally comparable; entities affected by extraordinary events, possessing significant brand/intangibles, performing higher-end KPO functions, or outsourcing substantial operations must be excluded, and accepted filters (including employee cost thresholds) must be applied when determining ALP.

---