Facts of the Case

The present appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2012–13, where the assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary of a US-based entity, was engaged in providing IT-enabled services (ITES)/BPO services such as phone activation and number portability support.

The assessee filed its return declaring income of ₹2.01 crore. During scrutiny proceedings under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the matter was referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under Section 92CA(3).

The TPO proposed an upward transfer pricing adjustment of ₹6.11 crore by rejecting the assessee’s comparables and introducing new comparables including:

  • Acropetal Technologies Ltd.
  • BNR Udyog Ltd.
  • Informed Technologies India Ltd.

Subsequently, after DRP directions, the adjustment was reduced to ₹3.22 crore and final assessment was passed under Section 144C read with Section 143(3).

The assessee challenged the inclusion of the above comparables before the ITAT, which directed their exclusion. The Revenue appealed before the Delhi High Court. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the ITAT erred in excluding Acropetal Technologies Ltd., BNR Udyog Ltd., and Informed Technologies India Ltd. as comparables for transfer pricing analysis.
  2. Whether functional dissimilarity between KPO and BPO/ITES services justifies exclusion of comparables.
  3. Whether any substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal’s findings.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)

  • The Tribunal wrongly excluded valid comparables selected by the TPO.
  • The TPO had correctly analyzed profit margins and functional comparability.
  • The Tribunal relied excessively on assessee’s data rather than TPO’s analysis, especially regarding margin fluctuations in BNR Udyog Ltd.
  • The inclusion of these comparables was justified for benchmarking international transactions.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The comparables selected by the TPO were functionally dissimilar.
  • The assessee was engaged in routine ITES/BPO services, whereas:
    • Acropetal Technologies Ltd. was a KPO with specialized healthcare IP.
    • BNR Udyog Ltd. provided medical transcription services.
    • Informed Technologies India Ltd. provided financial research and KPO services.
  • As per Rule 10B(2)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, comparability must be based on functional similarity.
  • Reliance was placed on judicial precedent in Rampgreen Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT.

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding:

  • The Tribunal had undertaken a proper functional analysis of comparables.
  • The excluded companies were engaged in KPO/high-end services, unlike the assessee’s routine ITES/BPO services.
  • Functional dissimilarity is a valid ground for exclusion under Rule 10B(2)(a).
  • Margin fluctuation was not the sole factor; core functional differences were decisive.
  • No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal’s findings.

Important Clarification

  • The Court reaffirmed that KPO services cannot be compared with BPO/ITES services for transfer pricing benchmarking.
  • Functional comparability takes precedence over mere profit margin comparison.
  • Even if margins appear comparable, differences in nature of services, intellectual property, and skill level are decisive.

 Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS08082023ITA7412018_150323.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.