Transfer pricing comparables must be functionally similar, and binding panel directions on deduction must be implemented.

Transfer pricing comparables must be functionally similar and supported by disclosed reasoning; unrelated businesses such as engineering, testing, foreign exchange, travel, or container freight services cannot be introduced without a clear basis. On the facts described, exclusion of the impugned comparables brought the assessee's margin within the permissible range, so the transfer pricing adjustment was deleted. The text also notes that an Assessing Officer must implement a binding Dispute Resolution Panel direction allowing deduction under section 80G, and failure to do so is not justified. The officer was directed to pass the consequential order within the stated time.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the transfer pricing adjustment based on a fresh set of comparables was sustainable, and (ii) whether the Assessing Officer was bound to give effect to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction allowing deduction under section 80G.

Issue (i): whether the transfer pricing adjustment based on a fresh set of comparables was sustainable

Analysis: The assessee had applied the transactional net margin method and selected comparables for benchmarking its marketing support services. The transfer pricing officer rejected the assessee's set and introduced new comparables, but did not disclose any clear basis, source, or reasoning for selecting those comparables. The comparable companies chosen by the transfer pricing officer were found to be functionally dissimilar, including businesses engaged in engineering services, testing services, foreign exchange and travel related activities, and container freight station activities. The Tribunal held that comparable selection must rest on identifiable and functionally similar businesses, and that the authorities cannot substitute unrelated comparables without supporting material. After exclusion of the impugned comparables, the assessee's margin fell within the permissible range.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was deleted and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the Assessing Officer was bound to give effect to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction allowing deduction under section 80G

Analysis: The Assessing Officer was required to implement the Dispute Resolution Panel's binding direction on deduction under section 80G. Non-implementation of such a direction was not justified, and the officer was directed to pass the necessary order within a specified time.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was held bound to give effect to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the principal transfer pricing dispute and on the implementation of the Dispute Resolution Panel's deduction direction, while the remaining grounds were consequential.

Ratio Decidendi: Comparable selection in transfer pricing must be based on functionally similar businesses supported by disclosed reasoning, and binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel must be implemented by the Assessing Officer.

---