Loss-making but functionally similar companies can be comparables under Transfer Pricing Rule 10B

The ITAT Delhi held that several companies selected as comparables by the TPO were inappropriate due to functional dissimilarity, differences in core versus non-core auto component manufacturing, and divergent business profiles including R&D and export activities. Companies manufacturing core auto components or having diversified operations unrelated to the assessee's two-wheeler non-core component manufacturing were excluded. However, Auto Line Industries was retained as a comparable despite losses, as it had reported profits in one of three years and shared a similar functional profile. The appeal was allowed, directing the exclusion of unsuitable comparables and affirming that loss-making companies cannot be excluded solely on that basis when functional similarity exists.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the adjustment of Rs. 4,39,30,329/- to international transactions relating to purchase of raw materials, other materials, and payment of royalty under Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was correctly made.Whether the selection of comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)/Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was appropriate, including the rejection or inclusion of certain companies based on core vs. non-core auto components distinction, financial data reliability, and functional comparability.Whether the Cost Plus Method (CPM) or Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was correctly applied in determining arm's length price.Whether the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were rightly initiated where the addition sustained was a mere difference of opinion without omission or misrepresentation.Whether companies with persistent losses for two years (instead of three) should be excluded as comparables.Whether companies with turnover less than Rs. 1 crore should be excluded as comparables.Whether export incentives under Rule 10B(2)(d) of the Income Tax Rules should have been adjusted.Whether companies with export income exceeding 35% of total revenue are suitable comparables.Whether Remsons Industries Ltd. is an appropriate comparable company.Whether Auto Line Industries Co. should be included as a comparable despite prior rejection based on loss-making status.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The adjustment of Rs. 4,39,30,329/- under Section 92CA was upheld subject to exclusion and inclusion of certain comparables as directed by the Tribunal.The TPO/DRP erred in including companies manufacturing core auto components as comparables for a taxpayer manufacturing non-core auto components; accordingly, companies such as Roop Automotives Ltd., FIEM Industries Ltd., GNA Axles Ltd., Sankei Giken India (P) Ltd., Aurangabad Electricals Ltd., Roots Industries India Ltd., Talbros Engineering Private Ltd., and Remsons Industries Ltd. were excluded as inappropriate comparables.The rejection of the Cost Plus Method and adoption of TNMM by the TPO was not specifically overturned, but the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of proper Functional Analysis (FAR) and comparability consistent with the core/non-core distinction.Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were held to be erroneous as the addition was a "mere difference of opinion" and did not reflect any omission or misrepresentation of facts; thus, penalty was to be dropped.Companies with persistent losses for two years but with profit in one of the three years cannot be excluded as comparables; Auto Line Industries Co. was directed to be included as a comparable.The exclusion of companies solely on the basis of turnover less than Rs. 1 crore was not upheld as a valid ground for exclusion.The issue of adjustment for export incentive under Rule 10B(2)(d) was raised but no specific ruling was recorded in the judgment excerpt provided.The treatment of companies with export income more than 35% of total revenue as comparable was challenged but no specific ruling was recorded in the judgment excerpt provided.

RATIONALE:

The Tribunal applied the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically Sections 92CA, 143(3), 144C, and 271(1)(c), along with Rule 10TA and Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.The Tribunal relied on precedent decisions by coordinate benches distinguishing between core and non-core auto components for transfer pricing comparability analysis, emphasizing that "a company manufacturing core components cannot be compared with company manufacturing non-core auto components."The Tribunal underscored the importance of comprehensive Functional Analysis (FAR) in selecting comparables under TNMM, recognizing that "functional dissimilarities are subsumed and taken care of at the net margin level" but not to the extent of including fundamentally different product manufacturers.The Tribunal followed established case law that persistent loss-making status requires losses for three consecutive years to justify exclusion, citing decisions that a company with profit in one of three years cannot be excluded on this ground.The Tribunal emphasized that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should not be levied where the difference arises from a bona fide difference of opinion rather than concealment or misrepresentation.The Tribunal's approach reflects a doctrinal consistency with prior rulings on transfer pricing comparability and penalty imposition, reinforcing the necessity of functional and product similarity in comparables and fair treatment in penalty proceedings.

---