TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing comparables selected for the engineering, technical and inspection services segment and the market support services segment were to be retained or excluded on the basis of functional comparability, segmental availability, related-party transactions, financial year mismatch and persistent losses. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the +/-5% range under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing comparables selected for the engineering, technical and inspection services segment and the market support services segment were to be retained or excluded on the basis of functional comparability, segmental availability, related-party transactions, financial year mismatch and persistent losses.
Analysis: The comparability exercise was examined on the touchstone of functional similarity, availability of segmental results, and the reliability of the filters applied. Companies found to be functionally dissimilar, lacking segmental data, failing the related-party transactions filter, or otherwise unsuitable on the facts were directed to be excluded. In the engineering, technical and inspection segment, comparables such as those engaged in broader consultancy or diversified activities without reliable segmental particulars were held not to be proper comparables. In the market support services segment, entities engaged in HR operations, software support, advertising and marketing services, procurement-related services with a materially different profile, or other dissimilar activities were excluded. On the other hand, a comparable could not be excluded merely because of a different financial year ending if reliable data permitted comparison, but functional dissimilarity remained decisive. Persistent losses by themselves did not automatically justify exclusion unless the overall comparability analysis so warranted.
Conclusion: The comparables were directed to be adjusted in accordance with functional comparability and other accepted transfer pricing filters, with several additions and exclusions upheld or reversed as appropriate; this issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the +/-5% range under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The transfer pricing adjustment had to be recomputed after giving effect to the revised set of comparables and the accepted comparability objections. The applicability of the tolerance band followed from the recomputed arm's length analysis.
Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement was to be considered on the basis of the recomputed transfer pricing results after the comparability exercise.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained a mixed result in the cross appeals by modifying the comparable set and consequentially affecting the transfer pricing adjustment, with the matter ultimately disposed of as partly allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing comparability analysis, functional similarity and reliable segmental information are decisive, and a comparable may be excluded where the applied filters or business profile do not permit a dependable arm's length comparison.
TaxTMI 
