Transfer pricing comparables excluded where acquisition, amalgamation or demerger distorted functional comparability.

For transfer pricing analysis, companies affected by extraordinary events such as acquisition, amalgamation or demerger during the relevant year are not reliable uncontrolled comparables because those events materially alter their functional profile. Eclerx Services Ltd. and Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. were therefore excluded from the final comparable set, reducing the transfer pricing adjustment in the assessee's favour. The short-credit of TDS was not finally decided and was restored for verification at the assessment stage. The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was treated as mandatory and consequential, so no substantive relief was granted on that ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the comparables Eclerx Services Ltd. and Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. were liable to be excluded from the transfer pricing analysis on account of extraordinary events affecting comparability; (ii) whether the claim for short credit of TDS and the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C required interference.

Issue (i): whether the comparables Eclerx Services Ltd. and Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. were liable to be excluded from the transfer pricing analysis on account of extraordinary events affecting comparability.

Analysis: Eclerx Services Ltd. had undergone an acquisition during the relevant year, which materially altered its business profile and made it functionally dissimilar for comparability purposes. Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. had also undergone amalgamation and demerger in the relevant period, constituting an extraordinary event with similar effect on comparability. A company affected by such extraordinary circumstances cannot be treated as an uncontrolled comparable for determining the arm's length margin.

Conclusion: The two companies were rightly directed to be excluded from the final set of comparables, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the claim for short credit of TDS and the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C required interference.

Analysis: The short-credit issue was restored for verification at the assessment stage and not finally determined on merits. The levy of interest was treated as mandatory and consequential, leaving no substantive relief on that ground.

Conclusion: The TDS-credit issue was restored to the Assessing Officer and the interest ground failed, resulting in no further substantive relief on these issues.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was reduced by excluding two non-comparable companies, and the remaining ancillary grounds were either restored for verification or rejected, so the appeal succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: A company affected by an extraordinary event such as acquisition, amalgamation, or demerger during the relevant year is not a reliable comparable for transfer pricing analysis.

---