The High Court affirmed that the ITAT's exclusion of certain comparables based on functional dissimilarity is valid and that only perverse findings merit intervention under Section 260-A.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18th December, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (`ITAT') in ITA No. 7234/Del./2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. The issue urged by the Revenue concerns the exclusion of three companies i.e. Certification Engineering International Ltd., HSCC India Ltd. and Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd. from the list of comparable companies for the purpose of determining Arm's Length Price of the international transactions between the assessee and its associated enterprises.

3. The assessee company incorporated on 21st April, 1994, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bechtel Corporation USA. During the year under consideration, the assessee company was engaged in the business of export of customized electronic data to its overseas group companies.

4. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the ITAT has erred in excluding Certification Engineering International Ltd. and HSCC India Ltd. on the ground that the same are government undertakings without considering that being a government undertaking does not ipso facto lead to enhanced profitability of a company.

5. He states that the ITAT has erred in excluding Mitcon Consultancy & Engineering Services Ltd. from the final list of comparables on the ground of functional dissimilarity without considering that TNMM is less sensitive to minor differences in functional profile and the assessee company and this company are broadly functionally similar.

6. Having perused the impugned order and the paper book, this Court finds that the ITAT excluded abovementioned three companies from list of comparable on the basis of detailed reasons after analysing and comparing the profiles of the said companies with the assessee company.

7. The ITAT with respect to comparable Certificate Engineering International Ltd., based on its annual report, observed that operations of the comparable company mainly include certification activities, third-party inspection activities, safety audit and ERDMP audits, and accordingly rejected this comparable on the ground being functionally dissimilar with the assessee company.

8. The ITAT relied on the order of its Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No. 882/Del./2014, wherein the comparable Certificate Engineering International Ltd. was excluded by the ITAT on the same ground of being functionally dissimilar with the assessee company.

9. With respect to comparable HSCC India Ltd., the ITAT upon perusing profit and loss statement for the year under consideration, observed that the main revenue of the comparable company is of Rs.33.79 crores which has been shown in the directors report as consultancy income from designing and engineering, project management and procurement of medical equipment, drugs and pharmaceutical etc. The ITAT observed that the activity of providing consultancy cannot be held functionally similar to the activity of preparing engineering design and drawings and therefore, the company is functionally dissimilar with the assessee.

10. The ITAT further observed that HSCC India Ltd. is also a government undertaking and earns revenue from government contracts, and accordingly rejected the same as comparable relying on its Co-ordinate Bench's Order in assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein government controlled enterprises were excluded from the list of comparable companies.

11. Despite specific directions passed by this Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ca