Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: functional similarity, working capital relief, and current-year data applied.

Transfer pricing analysis under the ITAT Delhi approach focuses on functional comparability, working capital adjustment, risk adjustment, multi-year data, and the five per cent tolerance benefit. India Tourism Development Corporation Limited was found not to be a persistent loss-maker and was remanded for fresh examination, Inhouse Production Limited was considered functionally comparable and directed to be included, while Elbit Diagnostics Limited was not accepted as a comparable on the facts. Working capital adjustment was required on the directed methodology, but no separate risk adjustment was granted in the no-risk service model. Current year data was upheld for arm's length price computation, and the five per cent benefit under the amended section 92C(2) framework was denied.

---

---

Issues: (i) exclusion and inclusion of the comparables India Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Inhouse Production Limited and Elbit Diagnostics Limited; (ii) entitlement to working capital adjustment; (iii) entitlement to risk adjustment in a no-risk service model; (iv) use of multiple-year data for arm's length price computation; and (v) availability of the five per cent benefit under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): exclusion and inclusion of the comparables India Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Inhouse Production Limited and Elbit Diagnostics Limited

Analysis: The comparability exercise turned on functional similarity and the correctness of the filters applied by the transfer pricing authorities. India Tourism Development Corporation Limited was held not to be a persistent loss-maker because the record showed profit in the relevant segment, and the earlier exclusion based on losses was found to be factually incorrect. Inhouse Production Limited was found to have a healthcare segment functionally comparable to the assessee's services, and that segment was directed to be included. Elbit Diagnostics Limited was accepted as not being a persistent loss-maker, but it was still found unsuitable on the facts because of its business circumstances and lack of reliable comparability.

Conclusion: India Tourism Development Corporation Limited was remanded for fresh consideration, Inhouse Production Limited was directed to be included in the comparables, and Elbit Diagnostics Limited was not directed to be included.

Issue (ii): entitlement to working capital adjustment

Analysis: Working capital adjustment was required to be computed using the methodology directed by the Dispute Resolution Panel and in line with OECD principles. The adjustment had to account for inventories, receivables and payables on a comparable basis, with the relevant interest rate applied to the differential working capital position. The failure of the assessment order to give effect to that direction was not justified.

Conclusion: Working capital adjustment was directed to be granted.

Issue (iii): entitlement to risk adjustment in a no-risk service model

Analysis: The assessee's business model was described as cost-plus, with reimbursement of expenses and a markup, and the record indicated that it operated without entrepreneurial risk. The transfer pricing authorities had declined a risk adjustment on the ground that reliable data was not shown for a quantified adjustment. The reasoning recognised the assessee's limited-risk character, but no positive quantified adjustment was worked out on the record.

Conclusion: No separate risk adjustment was granted.

Issue (iv): use of multiple-year data for arm's length price computation

Analysis: The transfer pricing rules permit reliance on current year data, while earlier year data is relevant only where it has an influence on the determination of transfer price. On the facts, the authorities found no basis to depart from the current year data approach, and no error in that method was shown.

Conclusion: The use of single-year current data was upheld.

Issue (v): availability of the five per cent benefit under the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Analysis: The amended statutory framework under section 92C(2A) did not support the assessee's claim to the standard five per cent variation benefit in the manner urged. The authorities applied the post-amendment position and declined the reduction.

Conclusion: The five per cent benefit was denied.

Final Conclusion: The appeal resulted in partial relief to the assessee, with one comparable restored for fresh examination, one comparable directed to be included, working capital adjustment allowed, and the remaining transfer pricing challenges rejected.

---