Transfer pricing comparability and incentive deduction issues: forex gains are operating income, filters may be relaxed, and alternative relief needs review.

Transfer pricing comparability must reflect functional reality, so foreign exchange fluctuation from operating activity is included in operating income or cost, a 75% export filter may be reduced where it distorts comparables, and a functionally different software licence business may be excluded while an export-oriented segment with segmental data may be retained. Comparability objections based on lack of opportunity fail where show-cause notices were issued and heard, and rejection of multiple year data stands where covered by binding authority. On incentive relief, an alternative claim under section 10A can require fresh examination where the statutory conditions were not fully considered, while section 10B eligibility was not finally decided.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under section 10B was allowable to the assessee's STPI unit approved by the STPI Director without ratification by the Board of Approval, and whether the alternative claim for deduction under section 10A required fresh examination; (ii) Whether foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss formed part of operating income for transfer pricing purposes; (iii) Whether the export turnover filter of 75% was excessive, and whether Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Vama Industries Ltd. were to be retained or excluded as comparables; (iv) Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity on comparability materials and whether multiple year data could be used.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under section 10B was allowable to the assessee's STPI unit approved by the STPI Director without ratification by the Board of Approval, and whether the alternative claim for deduction under section 10A required fresh examination.

Analysis: The unit had been granted STPI approval and the assessee had historically been allowed deduction under section 10B, but the lower authorities held that approval by the Board under section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was necessary. The Tribunal did not finally decide the allowability under section 10B. It found that the assessee had made an alternative claim under section 10A during assessment and that the lower authorities had not fully examined whether the assessee satisfied the statutory conditions for that deduction. As incentive provisions are to be construed liberally, the alternative claim required proper consideration on merits.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the assessee's eligibility under section 10A. The claim under section 10B was not finally adjudicated by the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss formed part of operating income for transfer pricing purposes.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that several coordinate bench decisions had treated foreign exchange fluctuation as part of operating revenue or operating cost in transfer pricing analysis. Following that line of authority, it held that forex gain/loss was attributable to operations and should not be excluded while computing margins.

Conclusion: Foreign exchange fluctuation gain/loss was held to be part of operating income for transfer pricing computation.

Issue (iii): Whether the export turnover filter of 75% was excessive, and whether Thirdware Solutions Ltd. and Vama Industries Ltd. were to be retained or excluded as comparables.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the 75% export filter applied by the transfer pricing authorities was too strict in the facts of the case and should be relaxed to 50%. It further held that Thirdware Solutions Ltd. was functionally different, as it was engaged in software licence-related and other activities beyond pure software development services, and therefore could not be retained as a comparable. On the other hand, Vama Industries Ltd. had segmental data showing that its software development and services segment was predominantly export-oriented, and the comparable should not have been rejected merely on the broader turnover figures.

Conclusion: The export filter was reduced to 50%, Thirdware Solutions Ltd. was directed to be excluded, and Vama Industries Ltd. was directed to be considered as a comparable.

Issue (iv): Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity on comparability materials and whether multiple year data could be used.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the assessee had been issued show-cause notices and was heard during the transfer pricing proceedings, so no denial of opportunity was made out. It also accepted that the issue of multiple year data stood covered against the assessee by binding special bench authority.

Conclusion: The challenge based on lack of opportunity failed, and the objection to rejection of multiple year data was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained partial relief in the transfer pricing matter and a remand on the alternate deduction claim, while the Revenue's challenge to exclusion of Kals Information Systems Ltd. failed. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing, comparability must reflect functional reality, abnormal filters should be moderated where they distort the universe of comparables, and foreign exchange fluctuation arising from the operating activity forms part of operating income or cost. Incentive deductions may be examined on an alternative statutory basis when the original claim fails, if the statutory conditions for the alternative relief have not been fully considered.

---