Transfer pricing comparable selection and FAR analysis require re-verification of comparables and recomputation of operating margins

Transfer pricing review focuses on comparable selection and FAR analysis for a captive service provider operating on a cost plus markup. Functional dissimilarity of proposed comparables due to ownership of intangibles, independent R&D and brand value leads to their exclusion. Two comparables are remitted to the assessing officer/TPO for verification of export revenue and FAR conformity and possible inclusion if they meet filters. Margins of specified comparables are to be recomputed by the assessing officer/TPO in accordance with law. Bad and doubtful debts and related provisions are to be treated as operating items when computing comparable operating margins.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. General grounds challenging the assessment order.
2. Grounds relating to transfer pricing matters.
3. Consequential grounds regarding penal proceedings and demand notice.
4. Admission of additional grounds of appeal.
5. Specific comparables for inclusion/exclusion in transfer pricing analysis.

Summary:

General Grounds:
1. The assessee challenged the assessment order dated 25.01.2022, contending it is erroneous, bad in law, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Transfer Pricing Matters:
2. The AO erred by not following the DRP's binding directions, failing to grant appropriate relief to the appellant.
3. An addition of INR 19,65,61,201 was made to the appellant's total income due to adjustment in the arm's length price (ALP) for international transactions with its associated enterprise.
4. The AO/TPO/DRP erred by not accepting the appellant's economic analysis and conducting a fresh analysis, incorrectly applying quantitative and qualitative filters, rejecting and accepting certain comparables, and not making suitable adjustments for differences in working capital and risk profiles. The adjustment was not restricted to international transactions, affecting third-party transactions as well.

Consequential Grounds:
5. The AO erred in initiating penal proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act.
6. The AO erred in issuing a demand notice under section 156 of the Act.

Admission of Additional Grounds:
2.1 The assessee filed applications on 19.08.2022 and 17.02.2023 seeking admission of additional grounds for inclusion/exclusion of specific comparables without requiring verification of new facts.
2.2 The CIT-DR opposed the admission but could not challenge the assessee's right under the Act.
2.3 The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, noting they are directly connected with the main issue of transfer pricing additions.

Specific Comparables:
8. The assessee sought exclusion of six comparables (Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mindtree Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Nihilent Ltd., OFS Technologies Ltd., and Infosys Ltd.) due to failure to satisfy the turnover filter and functional dissimilarities. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of these comparables based on precedents.
9. The assessee sought inclusion of Maveric Systems Ltd. and Evoke Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which were remanded back to the AO/TPO for verification of FAR analysis and relevant filters.
10. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the margins of Harbinger Systems Pvt. Ltd. and CG-Vak Software and Exports Limited.
11. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider bad debts and provision for bad debts as operating expenses while computing the operating margin of comparable companies, following precedents.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with specific directions for exclusion and inclusion of comparables and recomputation of margins, while other grounds and comparables not argued were left open for future contestation.

---