Transfer pricing comparables must match business profile; two travel companies were excluded for revenue mix and brand differences.

For transfer pricing purposes, a company with materially different revenue streams, diversified operations, or significant brand-driven advantages cannot be treated as a valid comparable for a captive service provider with limited functions. Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd. was excluded because its income came substantially from airlines commission and ancillary activities rather than tour operations, making its business profile materially different. Cox & Kings Ltd. was also excluded because its multi-segment operations and brand strength distorted comparability with the assessee's tourism service profile. The arm's length price was therefore required to be recomputed after removing both comparables.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd. was a valid comparable for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's international transactions; (ii) whether Cox & Kings Ltd. was a valid comparable for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's international transactions.

Issue (i): whether Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd. was a valid comparable for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's international transactions.

Analysis: The company's revenue was substantially derived from activities other than tour operations, including airlines commission and other ancillary income. Its business profile and revenue mix were materially different from the assessee's tourism service profile, making it an unreliable benchmark for transfer pricing comparison.

Conclusion: Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd. was directed to be excluded from the list of comparables.

Issue (ii): whether Cox & Kings Ltd. was a valid comparable for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's international transactions.

Analysis: The company had a significant brand value and operated in multiple business segments. Its revenue structure showed that the major portion of income arose from travel and tour commissions and other activities, so it was not comparable with the assessee, which functioned as a captive service provider. Brand strength and diversified operations affected price determination and reduced comparability.

Conclusion: Cox & Kings Ltd. was directed to be excluded from the list of comparables.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing comparison was held to be defective to the extent of the two disputed comparables, and the arm's length price was required to be recomputed after their exclusion.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing purposes, a company with materially different revenue sources, diversified activities, or significant brand-driven advantages cannot be treated as a valid comparable for a captive service provider engaged in limited functions.

---