Comparability adjustments under transfer pricing require import duty exclusion and working capital relief where material differences distort margins.

Under the Resale Price Method, import duty borne on imported traded goods must be excluded from operating cost where the duty materially affects comparability with uncontrolled comparables having negligible import content, because Rule 10B requires reasonably accurate adjustments for material differences affecting gross profit margins. Working capital differences are also a recognised comparability factor; where the assessee furnishes the necessary data, the adjustment should be considered in determining the arm's length price. On these principles, relief was granted on both import duty and working capital adjustment, resulting in partial allowance of the transfer pricing claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether import duty borne on imported traded goods should be excluded from the operating cost for comparability analysis under the Resale Price Method; (ii) whether working capital adjustment should be allowed in the transfer pricing analysis.

Issue (i): whether import duty borne on imported traded goods should be excluded from the operating cost for comparability analysis under the Resale Price Method.

Analysis: Rule 10B(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 requires uncontrolled transactions to be compared only where material differences do not affect price or profit, or where reasonably accurate adjustments can eliminate such differences. Rule 10B(1)(b)(iv) similarly requires adjustment for functional and other differences affecting gross profit margin. Since the tested party's purchases were predominantly imports and the comparables had negligible import content, the import duty element materially affected comparability. A suitable adjustment was therefore necessary to align the tested party with the uncontrolled comparables.

Conclusion: The exclusion of import duty from the assessee's operating cost was warranted, and the adjustment was directed to be made in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether working capital adjustment should be allowed in the transfer pricing analysis.

Analysis: Working capital differences can materially affect margins and are a recognised comparability factor where the relevant data is available. The record showed that the assessee had furnished the necessary details before the transfer pricing authorities, and the objection that the claim lacked supporting evidence was not sustainable on the facts. In these circumstances, working capital adjustment was required to be considered while determining the arm's length price.

Conclusion: Working capital adjustment was allowed in favour of the assessee, with the matter directed to be verified for the necessary details before the transfer pricing authority.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing addition was not sustained in full, as the assessee succeeded on the comparability adjustment relating to import duty and also obtained relief on working capital adjustment, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material differences between a tested party and comparables materially affect gross profit margins, reasonably accurate comparability adjustments must be made under Rule 10B to ensure arm's length benchmarking.

---