Transfer pricing comparables and section 10A turnover parity: functionally dissimilar companies and inconsistent turnover bases were rejected.

Transfer pricing comparables must be functionally similar to the tested service provider and must satisfy consistently applied filters; companies engaged in KPO or product development, those with significant intangibles or brand value, those lacking reliable segmental data, and those with distorted financials were treated as unsuitable comparables. Where only a software segment was relevant, entity-level margins could not replace segmental results. For deduction under section 10A and section 10B, any expense excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover to preserve parity in the statutory formula. The note records that these principles favoured the assessee on comparability and turnover-computation issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustments for software development services and IT support services called for exclusion of companies that were functionally dissimilar, had significant intangibles, lacked segmental data, or failed the accepted filters; (ii) whether expenses reduced from export turnover for deduction under section 10A and section 10B were also required to be reduced from total turnover.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustments for software development services and IT support services called for exclusion of companies that were functionally dissimilar, had significant intangibles, lacked segmental data, or failed the accepted filters.

Analysis: In transfer pricing analysis, comparables must be functionally similar to the tested party and must satisfy the filters adopted in a consistent and rational manner. Companies engaged in KPO or product development activities, companies with substantial brand value or intangibles, and companies for which reliable segmental information was unavailable were treated as unsuitable comparables. Companies with abnormal results, distorted financials, or employee cost and related party transaction profiles inconsistent with the filters also were excluded. Where a company's software segment alone provided the relevant benchmark, entity-level margins were not accepted in place of segmental margins.

Conclusion: The assessee succeeded substantially on the transfer pricing comparability issues, and several comparables were directed to be excluded or recomputed; the transfer pricing exercise was therefore substantially decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether expenses reduced from export turnover for deduction under section 10A and section 10B were also required to be reduced from total turnover.

Analysis: The formula for deduction under section 10A requires parity between export turnover and total turnover. If an item is excluded from export turnover, the same item must also be excluded from total turnover to avoid distortion of the statutory formula. The principle applied was that the deduction computation must reflect a consistent turnover base.

Conclusion: The reduction of travel and telecommunication expenses was required to be made from both export turnover and total turnover, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed on the transfer pricing comparability disputes and on the section 10A and 10B turnover-computation issue, but the ground relating to onsite work relief did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing, only functionally comparable companies with reliable segmental data and without distortive features may be used; for section 10A and section 10B, any exclusion from export turnover must equally be mirrored in total turnover when applying the statutory deduction formula.

---