Transfer pricing comparables, section 10A computation and functional dissimilarity led to remand, exclusion and allowance of deduction.

In transfer pricing, additional comparables were not to be rejected merely because they were absent from the original study; the assessee had to be allowed to place bona fide material and explain their relevance, so the matter was sent back for fresh consideration. Jeevan Softech Ltd. and BNR Udyog Ltd. were found functionally dissimilar to design engineering services, and BNR Udyog Ltd. also failed the related party transactions filter, so both were excluded. Operating margin computation and working capital adjustment were also remanded for recomputation after the comparable set changed. Section 10A deduction was to be computed undertaking-wise before set-off of losses of the non-eligible unit, and the claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether additional comparables could be introduced during transfer pricing proceedings; whether the comparables Jeevan Softech Ltd. and BNR Udyog Ltd. were functionally comparable; whether the operating margin computation and working capital adjustment required reconsideration; and whether deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was to be allowed before set-off of losses of the non-eligible unit.

Issue (i): Whether additional comparables could be introduced during transfer pricing proceedings.

Analysis: The exclusion of comparables merely because they were not part of the original transfer pricing study was held to be too rigid. The assessee must be given an opportunity to place relevant material and explain that the omission was bona fide and that the additional comparables are relevant for determining the arm's length price.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh consideration and the assessee was permitted to substantiate the additional comparables.

Issue (ii): Whether the comparables Jeevan Softech Ltd. and BNR Udyog Ltd. were functionally comparable.

Analysis: Jeevan Softech Ltd. was found to be engaged in medical writing, clinical data management and biostatistics, which was materially different from design engineering services. BNR Udyog Ltd. was found to be engaged in medical transcription, construction and financial activities and, in addition, failed the related party transactions filter on the facts noted.

Conclusion: Both comparables were directed to be excluded from the final set of comparables, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the operating margin computation and working capital adjustment required reconsideration.

Analysis: Since the comparable set was altered and the transfer pricing exercise depended on the correct margins and adjustments, these computational aspects needed to be revisited by the Revenue authorities after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer/TPO for recomputation and fresh examination.

Issue (iv): Whether deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was to be allowed before set-off of losses of the non-eligible unit.

Analysis: The deduction under section 10A was treated as undertaking-specific and, following the governing precedent, was required to be computed at the stage of profits of the eligible undertaking before adjusting losses of the ineligible unit.

Conclusion: The assessee's claim was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with one transfer pricing issue restored for fresh adjudication, two comparables directed to be excluded, the margin and working capital matters sent back for recomputation, and the section 10A claim allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing, relevant comparables may be examined on the basis of bona fide material placed during proceedings, and a section 10A deduction must be computed at the level of the eligible undertaking before set-off of losses of the ineligible unit.

---