Functional comparability drives transfer pricing relief as dissimilar comparables are excluded and verification issues are remitted.

Functional comparability is central to transfer pricing: entities engaged in pathology, radiology, imaging, healthcare, software development, data processing and contact-centre activities were held functionally dissimilar to a basic market research and testing service provider operating on a cost-plus, no-risk basis, so inappropriate comparables were excluded and the transfer pricing challenge succeeded. Depreciation on computer software was not finally rejected; it was restored for verification of whether the asset qualified for the claimed rate or only as an intangible asset at a lower rate. The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on international travel expenses was also remitted for factual verification of tax deduction and deposit, resulting in partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment required exclusion of certain comparables and acceptance of the assessee's challenge to the inclusion and rejection of comparables, filters, and risk profile. (ii) Whether the disallowance of depreciation on computer software deserved deletion or verification in accordance with the DRP's directions. (iii) Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on international travel expenses survived.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment required exclusion of certain comparables and acceptance of the assessee's challenge to the inclusion and rejection of comparables, filters, and risk profile.

Analysis: The assessee's activity was basic market research and testing on a cost-plus basis, whereas certain proposed comparables were functionally different, including entities engaged in pathology, radiology, imaging, healthcare, software development, data processing, and contact-centre related activities. Functional dissimilarity defeated comparability. The selection of comparables had to be tested on functional, asset, and risk parameters, and the assessee's no-risk profile also supported appropriate consideration in transfer pricing analysis. The challenge to search opacity and filters was accepted, and the exclusion of inappropriate comparables was warranted.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing grounds were decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of depreciation on computer software deserved deletion or verification in accordance with the DRP's directions.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the software should be treated as eligible computer asset depreciation at the claimed rate or as intangible assets at a lower rate. The matter was governed by the DRP's direction to verify the nature of the software and determine the correct rate accordingly. Following the same approach, the issue was not finally rejected on merits against the assessee but restored for compliance and proper verification.

Conclusion: The depreciation ground was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on international travel expenses survived.

Analysis: The assessee asserted deduction and deposit of applicable taxes on the travel expenditure, and the assessment record required verification in accordance with the DRP's directions. The matter therefore called for fresh decision by the Assessing Officer on the factual aspect of tax deduction and deposit, rather than a final adverse finding on the merits.

Conclusion: The disallowance ground was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions were substantially deleted on comparability grounds, while the depreciation and section 40(a)(ia) issues were remitted for verification, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A comparable must be functionally similar and assessed on functional, asset, and risk parameters; where the appellate directions require factual verification, the matter is appropriately allowed for statistical purposes rather than finally sustained against the assessee.

---