Delhi HC upholds rejection of three comparables in transfer pricing case due to functional dissimilarity and size differences

The Delhi HC upheld the Tribunal's decision to reject three comparables in a transfer pricing case. Infosys BPO Ltd was rejected due to its giant size compared to other comparables and functional dissimilarity as it engaged in software development with higher risk-profit profile. Acropetal Technologies Ltd was excluded as it provided engineering design services with high on-site expenses while the assessee only performed offshore activities. E-Clerx Services Ltd was rejected as it was a high-end KPO provider with automation and process re-engineering capabilities, unlike the assessee which employed fresh graduates for simple data entry work under BPO services.

---

---

Issues Involved:

A. Deletion of addition made by the AO on account of ALP adjustment of international transaction from associated enterprises.

B. Stringent standards of comparability laid down by ITAT.

C. Exclusion of comparables by ITAT without satisfying pre-conditions mentioned in Rule 10(B)(2) of the Income Tax Rules.

D. Exclusion of M/s Infosys BPO Ltd as comparable.

E. Exclusion of M/s Infosys BPO Ltd, Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and e-Clerx Ltd as comparables.

F. Deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(ia) due to violation of Section 197(1) of the Act.

G. Deletion of addition under Section 40A(2) despite failure to justify the service rendered by the director.

Summary:

Issue A: Deletion of ALP Adjustment
The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO on account of ALP adjustment of international transaction from associated enterprises, which was based on the TPO's benchmarking using TNMM with a margin of 22.72%.

Issue B: Stringent Standards of Comparability
The Tribunal was justified in laying down stringent standards of comparability, recognizing that exact comparables without any difference are not always possible, and emphasizing the need for flexibility in comparability analysis for determination of ALP.

Issue C: Exclusion of Comparables
The Tribunal excluded certain comparables without satisfying the pre-conditions mentioned in Rule 10(B)(2) of the Income Tax Rules, focusing on the functional dissimilarities between the entities.

Issue D & E: Exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd., and e-Clerx Ltd.
The Tribunal excluded Infosys BPO Ltd. due to its significantly larger size, brand value, and functional dissimilarity, as it is largely engaged in software development and assumes all risks leading to higher profits. Acropetal Technologies Ltd. was excluded due to its high on-site development expenses and lack of functional similarity with the respondent/assessee, who is engaged in offshore activities. e-Clerx Ltd. was excluded as it is a high-end KPO service provider, fundamentally different from the respondent/assessee's BPO services.

Issue F: Deletion of Disallowance under Section 40A(ia)
No arguments were advanced regarding the deletion of disallowance under Section 40A(ia), and the Tribunal treated this ground as infructuous, as the AO was directed to verify the tax deduction details.

Issue G: Deletion of Addition under Section 40A(2)
The proposed question regarding Section 40A(2) does not arise, as per the judgment in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chandigarh & Anr.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's findings on the exclusion of the three comparables were upheld, and no substantial question of law was found for consideration. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

---