TPO directed to revise comparable set, restore transfer pricing adjustment and reassess interest with netting in assessee's favor

ITAT DELHI - AT directed the TPO to include a previously excluded comparable engaged in exhibitions/marketing into the final comparable set and to exclude a comparable engaged in BPO services as functionally dissimilar, and restored the TP adjustment to the TPO for fresh examination. The tribunal also restored the issue of interest on delayed outstanding receivables to the TPO for re-assessment and ordered that netting of interest on outstanding receivables and payables be considered in the assessee's favor, following a coordinate bench's observations.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) erred in excluding or including specific comparable entities in the final comparable set for determining Arm's Length Price (ALP) of marketing support services where the assessee applied the TNMM and OP/TC as PLI.

2. Whether a particular comparable engaged in exhibition/marketing activities is functionally comparable to the assessee and therefore must be included in the comparable set.

3. Whether a comparable engaged primarily in BPO-type services is functionally dissimilar and therefore must be excluded from the comparable set.

4. Whether interest on outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises (AEs) can be re-characterised as an international transaction treated as a loan and, relatedly, whether netting of interest on outstanding payables against interest on receivables is appropriate for computation of interest income in transfer pricing proceedings.

5. Whether penalty proceedings under section 270A were properly initiated (raised by the assessee but not specifically adjudicated by the Tribunal in the impugned order).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1-3: Selection, inclusion and exclusion of comparables for TNMM benchmarking

Legal framework: Transfer pricing determination requires selection of comparable uncontrolled enterprises that are comparable in functions, assets and risks (FAR) and meet statutory/Regulatory filters; the ALP is to be determined by application of an approved method (here TNMM) and by benchmarking using appropriate Profit Level Indicator (here OP/TC).

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal follows established practice that comparability is a fact- and function-based inquiry; comparables that are functionally similar should be retained, and those functionally dissimilar excluded. Prior coordinate-bench guidance is applied where relevant factual similarity exists.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined functional activities of the contested comparables against the assessee's marketing support services which included organising exhibitions to advertise products. The Tribunal held that an entity performing exhibition and marketing-related services is functionally similar to the assessee and therefore comparable. Conversely, an entity primarily providing BPO services was found to be functionally dissimilar: its business model, service nature and FAR profile differ materially from marketing-support/exhibition activities.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - comparability must be determined on functional similarity; specific direction to include an exhibition/marketing services comparable and to exclude a BPO-services comparable is part of the operative ratio. Obiter - detailed discussions of arithmetic mean effects on the ALP, while explanatory, are ancillary to the primary comparability determination.

Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the TPO to include the exhibition/marketing comparable in the final set and to exclude the BPO-type comparable, and restored the matter to the TPO to re-examine the comparable set and recompute ALP accordingly.

Cross-reference: The Tribunal's directions on comparables were applied to restore the TP issue to the TPO for fresh examination and re-benchmarking (see Issue 4 implications below where relevant adjustments may change).

Issue 4: Treatment of interest on outstanding receivables from Associated Enterprises - recharacterisation and netting with payables

Legal framework: Transfer pricing assesses international transactions between AEs. Characterisation of transactions (e.g., sale proceeds versus loan) must reflect substance over form; interest on outstanding receivables may be treated as an income arising from an international transaction if the arrangement substantively amounts to an interest-bearing advance. Netting of reciprocal positions (receivables and payables) is a recognized factor in computing net exposure and related interest income where facts justify set-off.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal followed a coordinate-bench decision in the assessee's own prior year (AY 2017-18) that restored computation of interest on receivables to the TPO with direction that netting of interest on outstanding payables and receivables should be considered. That precedent was respectfully followed in the present matter.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the TPO had treated outstanding receivables as a separate international transaction and applied an interest benchmark (LIBOR + 400 bps) to impute interest income. However, consistent with prior coordinate-bench findings, the Tribunal held that the TPO must examine the matter afresh, and specifically consider netting of interest on outstanding payables against interest on receivables before making any adjustment. The Tribunal did not accept unqualified recharacterisation as a loan without fresh TPO examination of facts and netting position.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the TPO must recompute interest after considering netting of payables and receivables and must reassess any recharacterisation claim based on factual examination; this is an operative directive. Obiter - commentary indicating that recharacterisation requires careful substance-over-form analysis is explanatory but supports the ratio.

Conclusions: The Tribunal restored the issue to the TPO for fresh examination, directing that interest computation must account for netting of interest on outstanding payables and receivables and that recharacterisation as loan should not be assumed without factual basis. The matter is remitted for recalculation.

Issue 5: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A

Legal framework: Penalty under section 270A is contingent on specific findings of under-reporting or misreporting of income as per statutory standards and requires independent adjudication based on facts and law.

Precedent treatment: No substantive discussion or adjudication of penalty was undertaken by the Tribunal in the impugned order; the Tribunal limited its decision to TP comparability and interest issues, following prior coordinate-bench precedent where appropriate.

Interpretation and reasoning: The ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings was raised but not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's order; there is no express adjudication or conclusion on the validity of initiation of section 270A proceedings in the operative portion of the order.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - the omission to decide penalty remains procedural and does not form part of the Tribunal's ratio on TP and interest issues.

Conclusions: The Tribunal did not decide the challenge to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A in the impugned order; the point remains unadjudicated by this order and, if required, will need separate consideration or remand.

Overall disposition

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to the extent indicated: it directed inclusion of the exhibition/marketing comparable and exclusion of the BPO-type comparable, and remitted issues of benchmarking and interest on outstanding receivables (with directed netting of payables) to the TPO for fresh examination and recomputation. General grounds and the penalty ground were not substantively adjudicated in this order.

---