Transfer pricing comparables must match captive service functions; dissimilar ITeS and software entities were excluded, and depreciation was verified.
ITAT Mumbai reiterated that transfer pricing comparability must be based on like-with-like analysis. In the ITeS segment, companies with functional dissimilarity, unreliable segmental data, abnormal scale, restructuring effects, or entrepreneurial/high-end service features were excluded. In the software development segment, product-oriented entities, intangibles-heavy businesses, and research-intensive companies were found not comparable to a captive service provider and were excluded. The depreciation claim relating to earlier-year additions to the block of assets required factual verification of written down value and was remanded for examination according to law.
Issues: (i) whether the disputed comparables in the data processing / ITeS segment were liable to be excluded for functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental data, scale differences, or other comparability defects; (ii) whether the disputed comparables in the software development segment were liable to be excluded for being product-oriented, intangibles-heavy, or otherwise not comparable to a captive service provider; (iii) whether the depreciation claim on additions to the block of assets in earlier years required verification and allowance in accordance with law.
Issue (i): whether the disputed comparables in the data processing / ITeS segment were liable to be excluded for functional dissimilarity, lack of segmental data, scale differences, or other comparability defects.
Analysis: The transfer pricing analysis required comparison of like with like. Companies engaged in high-end services, entrepreneurial operations, or activities materially different from routine back-office / captive ITeS functions were not suitable comparables. The absence of reliable segmental data, abnormal scale, restructuring impacts, or functional differences justified exclusion where the facts matched earlier year decisions or the record showed no material change.
Conclusion: The disputed comparables in the ITeS segment were excluded, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.
Issue (ii): whether the disputed comparables in the software development segment were liable to be excluded for being product-oriented, intangibles-heavy, or otherwise not comparable to a captive service provider.
Analysis: A captive software service provider rendering routine services to associated enterprises cannot be benchmarked against entities engaged in product development, owning intangibles, undertaking research-intensive work, or operating at a materially different scale and risk profile. On the facts, the challenged companies did not meet functional comparability standards and were also supported for exclusion by consistent coordinate bench reasoning in similar matters.
Conclusion: The disputed comparables in the software development segment were excluded, and the assessee succeeded on this issue.
Issue (iii): whether the depreciation claim on additions to the block of assets in earlier years required verification and allowance in accordance with law.
Analysis: The depreciation claim depended on the factual verification of the written down value and the earlier year additions to the block of assets. As the correctness of the claim had to be examined on the record, the matter was restored for verification and decision according to law.
Conclusion: The depreciation issue was remanded for verification, and the assessee obtained partial relief.
Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions were substantially reduced by exclusion of several comparables in both segments, while the depreciation claim was sent back for verification, resulting in a partly favorable outcome for the assessee overall.
Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing purposes, a captive service provider cannot be benchmarked against comparables that are functionally dissimilar, KPO or product-development oriented, materially larger or riskier, or unsupported by dependable segmental information.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
