Functional comparability in transfer pricing and proper treatment of written-back balances governed the assessee-favourable outcome.

Transfer pricing comparables must be tested on functional comparability under the transactional net margin method, and selective acceptance or rejection of comparable companies without proper functional reasons is not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the Dispute Resolution Panel's fresh comparables approach and accepted the assessee's objection to the transfer pricing adjustment for the assembly and delivery management support segment. It also held that a separate adjustment for bad debts and balance written back was unwarranted where only a small amount was written off and the balance had already been offered to tax, so the deletion of that addition was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment for the assembly and delivery management support segment was sustainable where comparables were selectively accepted and rejected, and the Dispute Resolution Panel substituted a fresh set of comparables; (ii) Whether the adjustment made on account of bad debts and balance written back was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment for the assembly and delivery management support segment was sustainable where comparables were selectively accepted and rejected, and the Dispute Resolution Panel substituted a fresh set of comparables?

Analysis: The segment was benchmarked under the transactional net margin method, and the dispute turned on whether the comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer were properly filtered. The Tribunal found that the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected four comparables without demonstrating how they were functionally dissimilar, while accepting two others from the same overall segment. It also found that the Dispute Resolution Panel had afforded an opportunity to examine fresh comparables and that the objection to such consideration was not sustainable. The reasoning proceeded on functional comparability rather than narrow product comparability, and the selective acceptance of comparables was held to be inconsistent and illogical.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on this issue was not sustainable and the finding of the Dispute Resolution Panel was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjustment made on account of bad debts and balance written back was justified?

Analysis: The Tribunal found that only a small amount had actually been written off, whereas the larger amount represented balances written back and had already been offered to tax. The Transfer Pricing Officer had treated the two differently without appreciating the accounting distinction, resulting in an unwarranted adjustment. The Dispute Resolution Panel had deleted the addition, and no infirmity was found in that view.

Conclusion: The adjustment on account of bad debts and balance written back was not justified and the deletion was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeal failed on both effective grounds, and the assessee's transfer pricing position was substantially accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing analysis, comparables must be tested on functional comparability with a consistent methodology, and an adjustment cannot be sustained where comparable selection is selective, unsupported by reasons, or where the underlying amounts have already been accounted for in income.

---