ITAT Pune: Inaccurate Transfer Pricing Comparables and Functional Differences Require TPO Re-adjudication in Business Support Services - 2026-06-08

ITAT Pune Rules on Comparability: Refining Transfer Pricing for Business Support Services

In a significant ruling for multinational captive service providers, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench , has provided clarity on the selection of comparable companies for Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer / Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reconsider the inclusion of certain entities in the "comparable" set, emphasizing that functional similarity is the bedrock of valid transfer pricing analysis.

The Background of the Dispute

The assessee, Gallagher Service Center LLP (formerly Gallagher Operations Support Services Pvt. Ltd. ), functions as a captive back-office service provider for its group enterprises in the US and UK. During the Assessment Year 2018-19, the TPO contested the assessee’s transfer pricing study, rejecting its selected method and proposing an upward adjustment of over INR 20 crore, arguing that the assessee's mark-up was below the arm's length standards. Following an order by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which partially granted relief regarding transactions with the US entity, the matter reached the ITAT regarding the comparables used for transactions with the UK Associated Enterprise (AE).

Arguments Before the Bench

The assessee narrowed its challenge before the Tribunal to four specific companies deemed incorrectly included in the comparable list: Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited , CES Limited , MPS Limited , and Access Healthcare Services Private Limited .

• The Assessee’s Position: The Counsel argued that these companies possess functional profiles vastly different from the assessee’s captive support services. They highlighted that entities involved in e-book distribution, pre-media services, or complex KPO (Knowledge Process Outsourcing) functions, like revenue cycle management, cannot be equated with basic business support services.
• The Revenue's Position: The Departmental Representative largely relied on the earlier findings of the TPO and the DRP, maintaining that these entities fell within the broad categorization of business support or IT-enabled services (ITES).

Tribunal’s Legal Analysis

The ITAT Bench, comprising Dr. Dipak P. Ripote and Shri Vinay Bhamore, scrutinized the functional profiles of the disputed entities:

1. Functional Misalignment: The Tribunal found that for companies like Manipal Digital Systems , the revenue streams were mixed (ITES, e-books, etc.) without clear segmental data, rendering them unfit for comparison with a pure-play ITES provider.
2. KPO vs. ITES: Following the precedent set in Vodafone Global Services and Syngenta Services , the Tribunal reaffirmed that firms involved in specialized Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) and BPO segments cannot be lumped together with standard ITES providers.
   
   
3. Remand for Specific Adjudication: With respect to Access Healthcare Services Private Limited , the Tribunal noted that the specific technical nature of their "Revenue Cycle Management" business required a more nuanced factual inquiry that had not been fully ventilated before the lower authorities. Consequently, this specific issue was remanded for de-novo adjudication.

Key Observations

The judgment offers several stinging indictments of the TPO’s standard filtering process:

• "It is observed that the sales appearing in the Annual Report of Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited consist of ITES and Distribution Activities. Assessee is exclusively in ITES. Therefore, the functions performed by Manipal Digital Systems Private Limited are not comparable to assessee."
• "The Transfer Pricing Officer ... while rejecting Sundaram Business Services Limited has observed that Sundaram Business Services Limited is into ITES and KPO which makes it functionally non-comparable to assessee. Following the same principle, the CES Limited also becomes functionally non-comparable."
• "TPO shall try to find the exact function of Access Health Care Services P. Ltd."

Final Decision and Impact

The ITAT’s decision serves as a reminder to the Revenue that transfer pricing is a fact-intensive exercise. By directing the exclusion of three companies and ordering a remand on the fourth, the Tribunal has signaled that "broad" industry tagging is insufficient if the underlying "Functions, Assets, and Risks" (FAR) analysis reveals internal discrepancies.

For future cases, this ruling reinforces the necessity for the TPO to conduct a surgical, not generic, analysis when setting the arm's length price. Captive service providers should leverage this precedent to challenge the blanket inclusion of complex KPO providers in their ITES comparable sets.