Tribunal excludes companies as comparables, grants risk adjustments in favor of assessee

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the exclusion of E Clerx Services Ltd. and Genesys International Corporation Ltd. as comparables and granting risk adjustments. This decision reversed the orders of the Dispute Resolution Panel and Transfer Pricing Officer, resulting in a favorable outcome for the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Inappropriate selection of comparables.
2. Inappropriate rejection of risk adjustment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inappropriate Selection of Comparables:

The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary engaged in designing and developing chips, integrated circuits, and storage components, contested the inclusion of certain comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The TPO rejected three of the assessee's comparables and included four others, leading to a Profit Level Indicator (PLI) of 23.57%, significantly higher than the assessee’s PLI of 16.11%, resulting in an addition of Rs. 3,40,02,747.

The assessee argued that E Clerx Services Ltd. and Genesys International Corporation Ltd. were functionally dissimilar. The TPO justified their inclusion by categorizing them under Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services, which the DRP upheld. However, the Tribunal found that mere categorization under KPO was insufficient for comparability. The Tribunal cited the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decisions in Actis Global Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT and Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, emphasizing that the actual functions and characteristics of services rendered must be similar. The Tribunal noted that E Clerx was engaged in data analytics and Genesys in geographical information system services, both functionally different from the assessee's business. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of these two comparables for benchmarking.

2. Inappropriate Rejection of Risk Adjustment:

The assessee sought risk adjustments, arguing that it operated as a risk-mitigated entity, unlike the comparables which bore full-fledged risks. The TPO and DRP rejected this request. The Tribunal, referencing its own decision in the assessee's case for a previous year and the decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, held that risk adjustments should be granted. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow risk adjustments and re-compute the margins of comparables accordingly, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal directing the exclusion of E Clerx Services Ltd. and Genesys International Corporation Ltd. as comparables and granting risk adjustments, thus reversing the orders of the DRP and TPO on these issues.

---