Transfer pricing officer must exclude three non-comparable companies from benchmarking analysis due to functional differences

ITAT Pune directed AO/TPO to exclude three comparables from transfer pricing analysis. Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited was excluded as its functions were not comparable to the assessee. CES Limited was excluded due to functional non-comparability, having mixed BPO/KPO functions, consistent with Vodafone Global Services precedent. MPS Limited was excluded due to extraordinary events of amalgamation and dissolution. The matter concerning Access Healthcare Services Private Limited was remanded to TPO for fresh adjudication, as the assessee's submissions regarding Revenue Cycle Management requiring specialized knowledge were not previously considered by TPO/DRP.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:

• Whether the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprise (AE) in the USA is applicable to similar international transactions with its AE in the UK;
• Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) erred in rejecting the transfer pricing study of the assessee and proposing an upward adjustment to the value of international transactions pertaining to business support services provided to the UK AE;
• Whether the comparability analysis and selection of comparable companies by the TPO was appropriate, including the use of qualitative and quantitative filters and the rejection or acceptance of specific companies as comparables;
• Whether the TPO erred in comparing full-fledged risk-bearing entities with the assessee's captive operations without making appropriate risk adjustments;
• Whether penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rightly levied given the nature of the transfer pricing adjustment;
• Specifically, whether four companies-Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited, CES Limited, MPS Limited, and Access Healthcare Services Private Limited-are comparable to the assessee for transfer pricing purposes.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Applicability of APA to UK Transactions:

The assessee contended that the arm's length rate agreed in the Bilateral APA with its AE in the USA should apply to similar international transactions with its AE in the UK. The DRP partially accepted this contention, restricting the transfer pricing adjustment to only the transactions with the UK AE and limiting the adjustment amount accordingly. This issue was not pressed further before the Tribunal, and hence no detailed adjudication was undertaken on this point.

Transfer Pricing Adjustment and Rejection of Assessee's Transfer Pricing Study:

The TPO rejected the assessee's transfer pricing study, which used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) with operating profit to operating cost (OP/OC) as the profit level indicator (PLI). The assessee's PLI was 13.3%, whereas the TPO's selected comparables yielded a median PLI of 23.19%. Based on this, the TPO proposed an upward adjustment of Rs. 20,24,85,411, which was later restricted by the DRP to Rs. 2,06,94,009 relating to UK transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not pressed grounds challenging the overall adjustment except for the issue of specific comparables (Ground No.6). Thus, the detailed analysis focused on the appropriateness of the comparables selected by the TPO.

Comparability Analysis and Selection of Comparables:

The assessee challenged the inclusion of four companies as comparables:

• Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited
• CES Limited
• MPS Limited
• Access Healthcare Services Private Limited

The Tribunal examined each company's functional profile, business segments, and financial reports to determine comparability with the assessee's captive business support services.

Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited:

The Tribunal observed that Manipal Digital Systems' revenue comprised IT Enabled Services (ITES), pre-media work, and e-book/book distribution. Since the assessee exclusively provides ITES business support services, the mixed nature of Manipal Digital Systems' activities rendered it functionally non-comparable. The Tribunal relied on prior precedent where similar mixed-function companies were held non-comparable and directed the deletion of this company from the comparable set.

CES Limited:

CES Limited's principal business was described as BPO/KPO, with no separate segmental data for ITES alone. The Tribunal noted that the presence of Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) activities, which involve specialized knowledge, distinguishes CES Limited from the assessee's purely ITES function. The Tribunal referenced earlier decisions where CES Limited was held non-comparable due to mixed functions and accordingly directed its exclusion from the comparable set.

MPS Limited:

The Tribunal found that MPS Limited underwent extraordinary corporate events during the relevant year, including the dissolution of a wholly owned foreign subsidiary and transfer of software and intellectual property to itself. These events materially altered the functional and risk profile of MPS Limited, making it non-comparable to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue did not rebut these facts and relied on precedent to exclude MPS Limited from the comparable set.

Access Healthcare Services Private Limited:

This company was engaged in ITES activities but specialized in medical billing and revenue cycle management, which the assessee argued was KPO and thus functionally different. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submission regarding the specialized nature of revenue cycle management was not placed before the TPO or DRP, depriving them of an opportunity to examine the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the question of comparability of Access Healthcare Services Private Limited to the TPO for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all relevant details and the TPO to provide a fair opportunity for examination.

Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Filters and Rejection/Acceptance of Comparables:

The assessee had challenged the TPO's modification of various filters applied in the transfer pricing study, including turnover thresholds, financial year ending, export earnings, employee cost ratios, intangible asset levels, forex spending, revenue trends, financial year duration, and receivables period. However, since the assessee did not press these grounds before the Tribunal, they remained unadjudicated.

Comparison of Full-Fledged Risk Bearing Entities with Captive Operations Without Risk Adjustment:

This ground was also not pressed before the Tribunal and thus was not examined in detail.

Penalty under Section 270A:

The assessee contended that penalty under section 270A was erroneously levied since the adjustment arose from a difference of opinion on transfer pricing. This ground was not pressed before the Tribunal and was dismissed as unadjudicated.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's key determinations and principles established include:

"Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited is not comparable to the assessee as its sales comprise ITES and distribution activities, whereas the assessee is exclusively in ITES."

"CES Limited is functionally non-comparable to the assessee as it operates in mixed BPO/KPO activities, and no separate segmental data for ITES is available."

"MPS Limited is not comparable due to extraordinary corporate events affecting its functional and risk profile, which were not rebutted by the Revenue."

"The issue of comparability of Access Healthcare Services Private Limited is set aside to the TPO for de novo adjudication, as relevant submissions were not previously considered."

The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of functional comparability in transfer pricing analysis and the inadmissibility of comparables with mixed or materially different functions without appropriate adjustments. It also underscored procedural fairness by directing re-examination where relevant evidence was not previously considered.

Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes by excluding three companies from the comparable set and remanding one for fresh consideration. All other grounds not pressed were dismissed as unadjudicated.

---