Transfer pricing comparables and provident fund deductions: factual comparability findings and timely remittance govern the tax result.

In transfer pricing appeals, exclusion of comparables on the basis of functional dissimilarity is treated as a factual finding, and no substantial question of law arises under section 260-A unless perversity is shown. The note also states that employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI remains deductible if deposited on or before the due date for filing the return, as the statutory requirement is satisfied by payment within that timeline. On these principles, the appeal was said to disclose no substantial question of law and to have been dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether exclusion of comparable companies on the ground of functional dissimilarity gave rise to a substantial question of law under section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether belated remittance of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI was allowable as deduction when paid before the due date for filing the return.

Issue (i): whether exclusion of comparable companies on the ground of functional dissimilarity gave rise to a substantial question of law under section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded factual findings that the identified companies were functionally different from the assessee, whose business was manufacturing woodworking machinery and spare parts, and had directed their exclusion from the final set of comparables. The Court held that, in transfer pricing matters, a challenge confined to selection or exclusion of comparables and application of filters does not, by itself, raise a substantial question of law unless the Tribunal's finding is shown to be ex facie perverse.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and no substantial question of law arose on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether belated remittance of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI was allowable as deduction when paid before the due date for filing the return.

Analysis: The Court followed the binding view that employees' contribution, once deposited on or before the due date for furnishing the return, is deductible. The statutory scheme was applied to hold that the expression contribution for the purpose of the relevant provisions covers both employer's and employees' contribution, and timely payment up to the return-filing due date satisfies the deduction requirement.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal raised no substantial question of law and was dismissed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing appeals, factual findings on comparability and functional dissimilarity ordinarily do not give rise to a substantial question of law unless perversity is shown, and employees' contribution to provident fund or ESI is deductible if deposited by the due date for filing the return.

---