Transfer pricing comparables must be functionally similar, and working capital differences may require adjustment in arm's length benchmarking.

Transfer pricing benchmarking requires functionally similar comparables with reliable comparability. Excel Infoways Ltd. was excluded because its functional profile and margin behaviour materially differed, while Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was included because it had been accepted in the assessee's earlier year and no change in function was shown for the year under review. Working capital differences that distort comparison must also be neutralised, so working capital adjustment was held allowable in determining the arm's length margin.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Excel Infoways Ltd. was a functionally comparable company and Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was liable to be included in the final set of comparables for transfer pricing purposes. (ii) Whether working capital adjustment was required while determining the arm's length margin.

Issue (i): Whether Excel Infoways Ltd. was a functionally comparable company and Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was liable to be included in the final set of comparables for transfer pricing purposes.

Analysis: The final set of comparables must reflect functional similarity and reliable comparability under the transfer pricing framework. Excel Infoways Ltd. was found to differ materially on functional profile and margin behaviour, while Jindal Intellicom Ltd. had been accepted in the assessee's own earlier year and no change in its functional profile was shown for the year under consideration.

Conclusion: Excel Infoways Ltd. was rightly excluded and Jindal Intellicom Ltd. was rightly directed to be included, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether working capital adjustment was required while determining the arm's length margin.

Analysis: Working capital differences affect the profitability of comparables and must be neutralised where they materially distort comparison. Adjustment to the profit margin of independent comparables is contemplated under the transfer pricing rules to account for such differences in functions and risk, and working capital adjustment was directed to be allowed at the stage of giving effect.

Conclusion: Working capital adjustment was held allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge to the comparable selection failed, and the assessee obtained relief on working capital adjustment, resulting in a partial allowance of the assessee's case overall.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing benchmarking, only functionally comparable entities with stable comparability can be retained, and differences affecting profitability, including working capital disparities, must be adjusted to arrive at a reliable arm's length price.

---