DEEPAK SIBAL,J. - (1.) In the main appeal, the appellant-assessee had sought to raise the following substantial questions of law. "1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in remanding the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment by holding that the TPO had not given any reasons for rejection of the CUP method which finding is perverse and contrary to the record ? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the adjustment of abnormal operating expenses while determining the net operating margins of the Appellant while applying the TNMM method ? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in considering Bajaj Auto Ltd. As perfect comparable ? 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the claim of depreciation on moulds ? 5. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the claim of sales tool expenses ?"
(2.) Through our order dated 26.08.2016, the appeal was ordered to be dismissed. Thereafter, an application seeking review of the said order with regard to the opinion expressed by us qua the second question was filed. Correction in the order qua the answer given by us to question no.5 was also sought to the extent that the assessment proceedings, on remand, be ordered to be done by the Assessing Officer instead of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
(3.) On 24.09.2016, we had re-called our order dated 26.08.2016 to the limited extent that the second question of law would be decided by us afresh. The correction in the order dated 26.08.2016 qua question no. 5 was made that on remand, the issue which was the subject matter of question no. 5 would be determined by the Assessing Officer and not the TPO.;