Facts of the Case

The present appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2012-13.

The dispute pertained to transfer pricing adjustments, specifically regarding the selection of comparables for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP).

The ITAT had excluded certain companies—namely Eclerx Services Pvt. Ltd., TCS E-Serve Ltd., BNR Udyog Ltd., and Excel Infoways Ltd.—from the list of comparables used for benchmarking the international transactions of the assessee.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether exclusion of certain comparables by the ITAT in transfer pricing analysis gives rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260A.
  2. Whether the companies excluded by the ITAT were functionally comparable to the assessee for ALP determination.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)

  • The Revenue contended that the ITAT had erred in excluding key comparables such as:
    • Eclerx Services Pvt. Ltd.
    • TCS E-Serve Ltd.
    • BNR Udyog Ltd.
    • Excel Infoways Ltd.
  • It was argued that these entities should have been retained for proper determination of the Arm’s Length Price.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The assessee supported the ITAT’s findings, arguing that:
    • The excluded companies were functionally dissimilar.
    • There were material differences in business activities, revenue composition, and operational structure.
    • Established judicial precedents had already held some of these entities as not comparable in similar factual scenarios.

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and held:

  • Selection or exclusion of comparables is primarily a factual exercise, and does not constitute a substantial question of law unless perversity or material error is demonstrated.
  • The ITAT had provided cogent and reasoned findings for excluding the comparables.
  • Functional dissimilarities were clearly established, including:
    • Differences in service profiles
    • Lack of segmental data
    • Mixed revenue streams (e.g., infrastructure activities in Excel Infoways Ltd.)
  • No perversity or legal error was found in the ITAT’s decision.

Accordingly, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • Mere inclusion or exclusion of comparables does not automatically give rise to a legal question under Section 260A.
  • A substantial question of law arises only when:
    • There is functional misinterpretation, or
    • Findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.
  • Transfer pricing disputes are largely fact-driven and case-specific.

Sections Involved

  • Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appeal to High Court
  • Transfer Pricing Provisions (Sections 92, 92C) – Arm’s Length Price determination

 

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:1522-DB/MMH26042022ITA1272022_201643.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.