Functional Dissimilarity in Transfer Pricing: exclude unsuitable comparable; admit excise-duty capitality ground but remit for factual verification.

In a transfer-pricing review the tribunal excluded a listed comparable on the ground that functional analysis showed the entity was engaged in manufacturing battery-production machinery and was therefore functionally dissimilar to the assessee, rendering it unsuitable for arm's-length benchmarking; this outcome favoured the assessee. The tribunal also admitted fresh grounds asserting that an excise duty exemption might be a capital-type receipt but directed remand to the assessing officer because the question requires factual verification of scheme eligibility and quantification, so the matter is to be verified and determined by the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether M/s Unik Techno Systems Pvt. Ltd. is a valid comparable for transfer pricing benchmarking or must be excluded as functionally dissimilar; (ii) Whether the Tribunal should admit additional grounds claiming excise duty exemption as a capital receipt and direct remand to the Assessing Officer for verification.

Issue (i): Whether the inclusion of M/s Unik Techno Systems Pvt. Ltd. in the final set of comparables for determining arm's length price is justified.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the functions and business activities shown for the comparable and noted that the Dispute Resolution Panel relied on material relating to a different entity (M/s Unik Batteries Pvt. Ltd.) which is functionally engaged in battery manufacturing. Evidence on record (website screenshots) shows that Unik Techno Systems Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in manufacturing machines used for battery production and is functionally dissimilar to the assessee. The comparison adopted by the DRP thus mismatches the actual entity included by the TPO.

Conclusion: The inclusion of M/s Unik Techno Systems Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable is not justified and is excluded. Conclusion in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal should admit additional grounds of appeal asserting that excise duty exemption is a capital receipt and remit the matter for verification by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered precedent on admission of fresh grounds at the appellate stage and noted that admission is permissible where appellate authorities can entertain questions of law or where material on record permits. However, the present claim requires factual verification of the nature of the incentive scheme, eligibility and quantification of the excise duty exemption which were not examined by lower authorities. The Tribunal therefore balanced the principles permitting admission of fresh grounds against the need for factual enquiry and found remand appropriate for verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The additional grounds relating to excise duty exemption are admitted for consideration and the issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision in accordance with law. Conclusion partly in favour of the assessee (admission) and requiring remand for fact-based determination.

Final Conclusion: One comparable has been excluded and additional grounds have been admitted with directions to the Assessing Officer to verify and decide the admitted claim; the appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A functionally dissimilar entity included as a comparable must be excluded from transfer pricing benchmarking, and fresh substantive grounds raised at the appellate stage may be admitted where legal principles permit but, if factual verification is necessary, the matter should be remanded to the assessing authority for determination.

---