Transfer pricing benchmarking requires both functional similarity and comparable operational scale. Significant turnover disparities between a tested entity and a potential comparable entity invalidate the reliability of the comparison, necessitating the exclusion of such entities from the benchmarking set to ensure an accurate determination of Arm's Length Price.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 92CA, 143(3), 144C - Determination of Arm’s Length Price - Rule 10B - Comparability analysis requires balancing functional equivalency and operational scale.

(B) Transfer Pricing - Comparable companies - Significant turnover disparity between a tested entity and a comparable entity necessitates exclusion, as scale and size directly influence operating margins and business risks.

(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Remand remains necessary where an entity's functional profile is disputed relative to defined service categories, preventing an accurate assessment of comparability. (Paras 42, 48-51)

Facts of the case:
The Revenue challenged an order of the Appellate Tribunal regarding transfer pricing adjustments, specifically disputing the inclusion of certain companies as comparables. The appeal contested the decision to include companies despite massive turnover differences and potential functional dissimilarity in the services provided.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that extreme turnover variance—specifically a magnitude exceeding a hundred-fold difference—between the tested party and a comparable company renders the latter unsuitable for benchmarking. Additionally, failure to verify if an entity’s services align with statutory definitions for specific tax-recognized activities necessitates a fresh examination for functional similarity.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in its selection of comparable companies, specifically concerning the threshold for turnover and the requirement to conduct an in-depth functional comparability test.

Ratio Decidendi: Functional similarity and operational scale are two foundational pillars for valid benchmarking. When turnover gaps are excessive, or the nature of functions performed is legally contested against standard industry definitions, the comparable must either be excluded or subjected to further rigorous examination to preserve the integrity of the Arm’s Length Price determination.

Result: Appeal is allowed in part; the matter is partly remanded for functional examination, and the exclusion of comparables with extreme turnover profiles is affirmed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of the factual and procedural background for ay 2009-10 assessment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 14)
2. functional similarity and far analysis are mandatory for comparable selection under transfer pricing. (Para 7 , 15 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
3. summary of rival contentions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of specific comparable entities. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. significant turnover and scale mismatch necessitate the exclusion of entities as comparables. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
5. final disposal of the appeal in favor of the appellant on questioned points of law. (Para 52)

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) for the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2009-10 challenging the order dated 03.08.2018 in ITA 2577/Del/2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) wherein the ITAT has allowed the assessee’s case.

2. The assessee is American Express (India) Private Limited (AEIPL) incorporated in India, in 1994, as a 100 percent subsidiary of American Express International Inc, USA (AEII). AEIPL is engaged in data management, information analysis and control activities and provides tele-servicing and transaction processing support. AEIPL is also engaged in booking travel and accommodation for corporate clients. It was acquired from American Express Bank Ltd. (India Branches) ("AEBL") as a part of the slump sale agreement in July 2007.

FACTUAL CONTEXT

3. The assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2009 declaring net income of Rs.1,13,42,21,352/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed its revised income on 29.03.2011. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CAS and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.10.2012. The company in response to the notice appeared through its authorised representatives.

4. During the year under consideration, the assessee had undertaken international transactions with its associated enterprises to the tune of Rs.15 crore. Therefore, the Revenue in accordance with the provisions of Section 92CA of the Act referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) for determining Arms Length Price, with the prior approval of CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi.

5. On 16.01.2013, the TPO under Section 92CA(3) of the Act passed an order wherein, he had made an adjustment of Rs.6,26,71,930/- to the income of the assessee being the difference between Arms Length Price and the price charged by the assessee. On 28.04.2014, an assessment order under Section 143(3) and 144C of the Act was passed for the income assessed at Rs.239,40,85,850/-. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) after the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has adjusted the Arms Length Price at Rs.67,05,58,495/-.

6. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order dated 28.04.2014, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT vide its order dated 03.08.2018 has stated that, in the grounds of appeal, the assessee had challenged the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.67,05,58,495/- made on the account of provision for export of data processing and back office support services/ Information Technology enabled Services (‘ITeS’) and purchase of fixed assets. Therefore, the issue is mainly against the inclusion and exclusion of various comparable companies and also the corporate tax on denial of deduction under Section 10A of the Act for Rs.58,93,05,999/- in respect of APGSC (STP unit) and not granting full credit of tax deduction at source to the assessee, as claimed in the return of income. The ITAT reproduced the functions performed by the assessee in the following manner:

“AEIPL is a captive contract IT enabled service provider catering to the needs of the Group.

As per the contractual arrangement that AEIPL has with its associated enterprises for the provision of such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document