Transfer-pricing comparables and exit-payment cost principles: factual tribunal findings and capital expenditure treatment defeat the taxpayer's challenge.

Tribunal findings on comparable-company selection and transfer-pricing filters generally do not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A unless ex facie perversity is shown, so mere disagreement with factual conclusions is insufficient. Compensation paid to exit a contract for proposed purchase of immovable property intended for business infrastructure was treated as capital expenditure, because it was connected with a capital asset or capital liability rather than ordinary business operations. On that basis, the payment was not deductible as revenue expenditure, and the assessee obtained no relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the Tribunal's comparable-company selection and transfer-pricing findings gave rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the compensation paid for withdrawing from the contract to purchase immovable property was capital expenditure and therefore not deductible.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the Tribunal's comparable-company selection and transfer-pricing findings gave rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The appeal concerned findings on selection of comparables and application of filters in determining the arm's length price. Such factual determinations do not ordinarily raise a substantial question of law unless ex facie perversity in the Tribunal's findings is shown. Mere dissatisfaction with the factual conclusions of the Tribunal is insufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose on this issue, and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation paid for withdrawing from the contract to purchase immovable property was capital expenditure and therefore not deductible.

Analysis: The payment was made to discharge a liability arising from a proposed acquisition of land intended for establishing infrastructural facilities for the business. The expenditure was treated as an extraordinary item connected with the acquisition of a capital asset or capital liability, and not as an outgoing incurred in the ordinary course of business operations. On that footing, it could not be regarded as revenue expenditure.

Conclusion: The payment was rightly held to be capital expenditure and the disallowance was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, as neither issue disclosed any substantial question of law and the assessee was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings of the Tribunal on comparables and transfer-pricing filters do not raise a substantial question of law absent ex facie perversity, and expenditure incurred to exit a capital acquisition arrangement is capital in nature rather than revenue in nature.

---