Transfer pricing benchmarking upheld; selected comparators were functionally dissimilar and rightly excluded, with no substantial question of law

The HC upheld the Tribunal's transfer-pricing benchmarking, agreeing that selected comparators were functionally dissimilar and therefore rightly excluded: a large diversified service provider with greater turnover, an entity owning substantial intangibles with mainly on-site revenues, a diversified conglomerate, and a multi-segment firm with significant post-acquisition sales growth were all unsuitable. The Tribunal's treatment of foreign-exchange fluctuations and operating revenue was also sustained. The HC found no infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusions and held that no substantial question of law arises.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against assessment order under Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Addition of income on account of re-computation of arm's length price (ALP) in international transactions.
3. Transfer pricing study using Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM).
4. Inclusion/exclusion of comparable entities for benchmarking.
5. Functionally dissimilar entities like Infosys, Zylog, Larsen & Toubro, and Acropetal.
6. ALP adjustments recommended by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
7. Decision of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) on comparable entities.
8. Judicial precedents supporting exclusion of certain entities.
9. Inclusion of foreign exchange currency fluctuation and operating revenue.
10. Absence of substantial question of law in the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 17,25,99,668/- to the declared income of the assessee due to re-computation of the arm's length price (ALP) in international transactions related to software development. The assessee had used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking and the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) selected additional comparable entities for determining the mean Profit Level Indicator (PLI) (para 1-3).

The TPO's selection of comparables, including Infosys, Zylog, Larsen & Toubro, and Acropetal, was contested by the assessee. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) accepted some objections raised by the assessee, leading to final ALP adjustments of Rs. 17,26,00,000/-. The assessee's appeal against the inclusion of four entities was accepted by the Tribunal, prompting the Revenue to challenge this decision (para 4-6).

The High Court noted that entities like Infosys, Zylog, Larsen & Toubro, and Acropetal were found to be functionally dissimilar to the assessee, based on previous judicial decisions and the nature of their operations. The exclusion of these entities as comparables was upheld by the Court, citing functional dissimilarities and revenue sources as key factors (para 7-11).

Regarding the inclusion of foreign exchange currency fluctuation and operating revenue, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing precedent cases. It was concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the present appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal (para 12-14).

---