Transfer pricing comparables, LIBOR-based receivable interest, and fact-specific credit periods shape benchmarking for associated enterprises.

Transfer pricing comparables may be excluded where the entities are functionally dissimilar, including a KPO profile, high turnover, or where earlier year decisions in the same assessee's case have already treated them as unsuitable. Interest on overdue receivables from associated enterprises may be benchmarked at LIBOR plus 200 basis points where that approach is supported by prior year reasoning, rather than using SBI short-term deposit rates. The appropriate credit period for outstanding receivables is fact-specific and cannot be fixed mechanically at 120 days; section 92CE and Rule 10CB do not prescribe a normal credit period for interest benchmarking and instead relate to secondary adjustment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether EClerx Services Limited and Infosys BPO Limited were liable to be excluded from the final list of comparables for transfer pricing benchmarking; (ii) whether the arm's length rate of interest on overdue receivables from associated enterprises was to be computed at LIBOR plus 200 basis points; (iii) whether a 120-day credit period could be allowed for benchmarking interest on outstanding receivables.

Issue (i): Whether EClerx Services Limited and Infosys BPO Limited were liable to be excluded from the final list of comparables for transfer pricing benchmarking.

Analysis: The exclusion of the two companies was sustained on the footing that the assessee's functional profile had not materially changed and that the jurisdictional Tribunal had consistently excluded these comparables in earlier years in the assessee's own case. EClerx Services Limited was treated as a KPO concern and Infosys BPO Limited was treated as unsuitable because of huge turnover and related functional dissimilarities. The retention of one other comparable did not justify remand, as the exclusion of these two comparables was based on settled year-specific and case-specific reasoning already applied in the assessee's case.

Conclusion: The exclusion of EClerx Services Limited and Infosys BPO Limited was justified and is upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arm's length rate of interest on overdue receivables from associated enterprises was to be computed at LIBOR plus 200 basis points.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by the assessee's own earlier year decision, where the Tribunal had accepted LIBOR plus 200 basis points as the appropriate benchmark for interest on outstanding receivables from associated enterprises. The Tribunal found no reason to depart from that approach and rejected the Revenue's challenge to the use of the SBI short-term deposit rate as the benchmark.

Conclusion: The benchmark of LIBOR plus 200 basis points for interest on overdue receivables was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a 120-day credit period could be allowed for benchmarking interest on outstanding receivables.

Analysis: The Tribunal declined to accept a uniform 120-day credit period merely by reliance on other cases, holding that the credit period is fact-sensitive and cannot be applied mechanically across matters. It also rejected the alternative argument that section 92CE and Rule 10CB justify a 90-day credit period for ordinary receivables, as those provisions govern secondary adjustment after primary transfer pricing adjustments and do not prescribe the normal credit period for interest benchmarking. The appropriate credit period was directed to be taken from the assessee's own earlier year treatment.

Conclusion: The 120-day credit period was not approved, and the matter was directed to be aligned with the credit period applied in the assessee's own earlier year case.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals succeeded only in part. The exclusion of the disputed comparables and the LIBOR-based interest benchmark were sustained, while the assessee's claim for a blanket 120-day credit period was not accepted as such.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing matters, comparables may be excluded where binding precedent and unchanged functional profile show material dissimilarity, interest on delayed receivables may be benchmarked with LIBOR-based rates where earlier year decisions so hold, and the credit period for receivables must be determined on case-specific facts rather than by mechanical application of a uniform period.

---