- (1.) Invoking Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the assessee has preferred the present appeal to challenge therein the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
(2.) The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2006-07 and through the same, the assessee seeks 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 - Qua question no. 1, Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant sought a favourable opinion from us as according to him, the Tribunal had erred in law by remanding the matter back to the Transfer Pricing Officer ( for short the TPO) after holding that the TPO had not given any worthwhile reasons for discarding the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determination of the arm's length price, the data for which had been supplied to him by the appellant-assessee. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that adequate reasons had been given by the TPO for not applying the CUP method for determining the arm's length price and the Tribunal itself should have gone into those reasons and then opined on them rather than remanding the matter back to the TPO for fresh assessment.
(3.) We are not inclined to accept the afore-referred submission made on behalf of the appellant. A perusal of the assessment order passed by the TPO shows that the appellant had entered into 14 international transactions and for determination of the arm's length price for these transactions at the hands of the TPO qua 12 of them, the appellant had applied both the CUP method and Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The details with regard to the afore-referred international transactions are tabulated below :- JUDGEMENT_342_LAWS(P&H)8_2016_1.html;