Transfer pricing comparables and arm's length price issues are factual, with no substantial question of law absent perversity.

Transfer pricing disputes over selection of comparables, application of filters, and arm's length price are ordinarily findings of fact, so no substantial question of law arises under section 260-A absent demonstrable ex facie perversity. The Tribunal's reference to section 10A was only obiter and caused no legal prejudice because the assessment order had not allowed any deduction on the transfer pricing adjustment under that provision. The second proviso to section 92C(4) did not change the result on the facts. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable on the transfer pricing issues.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal under section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raised any substantial question of law in a transfer pricing dispute, and whether the Tribunal's observation regarding section 10A created any legal prejudice to the Revenue.

Analysis: The Court held that disputes concerning selection of comparables, application of filters, and determination of arm's length price are ordinarily findings of fact. In the absence of demonstrable ex facie perversity, such issues do not give rise to a substantial question of law for consideration under section 260-A. The Court also held that the Tribunal's observation on section 10A was only an obiter and caused no prejudice, since the assessment order had not granted any deduction on the transfer pricing adjustment under section 10A. The second proviso to section 92C(4) did not alter the result on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable on the transfer pricing issues and the incidental section 10A observation did not affect the outcome.

---