Transfer pricing comparability turned on factual functional dissimilarity, so exclusion of the comparable raised no substantial question of law.

Exclusion of Febulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd. from the transfer pricing comparables was treated as a factual determination, because the Tribunal found it operated in a different line of business and that its public financial data was incomplete, making selective reliance impermissible. The court held that this assessment turned on functional dissimilarity and appreciation of the record, not on a substantial question of law under section 260A. The exclusion of the comparable was therefore not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether exclusion of Febulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd. as a comparable in transfer pricing analysis gave rise to a substantial question of law under section 260A.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the comparable was engaged in an entirely different line of business and that its figures were not fully available in the public domain, so they could not be selectively relied upon. This determination was based on appreciation of the material on record and on functional dissimilarity, which is a factual exercise in transfer pricing comparability analysis.

Conclusion: The issue was factual and did not raise any substantial question of law. The finding excluding the comparable was not interfered with.

---