Tribunal excludes comparables in transfer pricing case based on functional differences and extraordinary events.

The Tribunal upheld the exclusion of M/s. Accentia Technologies Limited, M/s. Coral Hub, and M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. as comparables for determining the arm's length price. These companies were deemed functionally different from the assessee-company, with extraordinary events affecting their operations. The decision was supported by High Court judgments, including from the Bombay and Delhi High Courts. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and no substantial question of law was identified.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether M/s. Accentia Technologies Limited, M/s. Coral Hub (previously known as Vishal Information Technologies), and M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. can be taken as comparables for determining the arm's length price in the case of the assessee-company.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. M/s. Accentia Technologies Limited:
The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) considered M/s. Accentia Technologies Limited as a comparable because its revenue from ITES was more than 75% of its total revenue. However, the Tribunal excluded this company from the set of comparables. The Tribunal noted that M/s. Accentia Technologies Ltd. was functionally different and had extraordinary events during the relevant year, making it unsuitable for comparison. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer/TPO to exclude this company from the set of comparables.

2. M/s. Coral Hub (previously known as Vishal Information Technologies):
The TPO considered M/s. Coral Hub as a comparable because it was engaged in information technology enabled services (ITES). The TPO noted that the company outsourced a significant portion of its work but still used its own assets and human resources. The Tribunal, however, excluded this company from the set of comparables, observing that it was engaged in different verticals and worked through outsourcing models, making it functionally different from the assessee-company.

3. M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd.:
The TPO considered M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. as a comparable, noting that its services fell within the definition of ITES and that it had a margin of 66.50%. However, the Tribunal excluded this company from the set of comparables, noting that it was functionally different and had extraordinary events during the relevant year. The Tribunal directed the TPO to compute the average margin of comparables after excluding M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. and the other two companies and to compute the arm's length price of the international transaction accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision to exclude M/s. Accentia Technologies Limited, M/s. Coral Hub, and M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. from the set of comparables was upheld. The Tribunal found these companies to be functionally different from the assessee-company and noted extraordinary events in their operations during the relevant year. The Tribunal's findings were supported by various High Court judgments, including those from the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, which had excluded these companies as comparables in similar cases. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and no substantial question of law was found to arise.

---