EWAC ALLOYS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessing Officer" or "AO") for the Assessment Year 2022-23, pursuant to the directions

EWAC Alloys Limited 2 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") under Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") vide order dated 12.12.2025. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced hereinbelow:

“The grounds of appeal stated hereunder are independent and without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TΡΟ') and the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') erred in making an addition to the Appellant's total income of INR 20,49,05,661 based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')). 2.1. The Hon'ble DRP and the Learned TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the Transactional Net Margin Method adopted by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing documentation maintained under section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') for determining the arm's length nature of International transaction pertaining to payment towards management support services received from its Associated Enterprises ('AEs'). 2.2. The Hon'ble DRP and the Learned TPO erred in law and on facts in adopting the "Other Method" as per Rule 10AB, without bringing on record any comparable transaction / data to justify the methodology adopted. 2.3. The Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO erred on facts in not understanding the business of the Appellant and failed to appreciate the need for Management services from AEs which are critical for its operations in India. 2.4. The Hon'ble DRP and Learned TPO erred on facts in not appreciating that the Management Support services received from the AE are closely linked to the operations of the Appellant and erred in rejecting the aggregated TNMM approach of the Appellant. 2.5. The Hon'ble DRP/Learned TPO erred in not taking into consideration the detailed and voluminous evidence filed by the Appellant and erred in stating that that the need-benefit test was not substantiated. 2.6. The Hon'ble DRP and the Learned TPO erred in law and on facts in disregarding the commercial agreement entered by the Appellant and questioning the commercial expediency of the taxpayer, which is entirely the prerogative of the Appellant to avail such Management services and take such decisions that favour the advancements of its business.

EWAC Alloys Limited 3 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

2.7. The Hon'ble DRP erred in disregarding the principle of consistency by not following the coordinate bench decision for the AY 2021-22 in the appellant's own case (as placed before DRP), without demonstrating material factual distinction for the year under appeal. 3. Erroneous proposal of Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 3.1. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under- reporting of income amounting to INR 20,56,52,408 considering the abovesaid adjustment as under-reporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein above and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the hearing of this appeal as per the law. The Appellant therefore prays that the aforesaid additions to the returned income of the Appellant be deleted.”

2.1 Upon examination, the learned TPO scrutinised, inter alia, the international transactions relating to payment of trademark licence fee, receipt of management support services, and corporate guarantee. The principal dispute in the present appeal

EWAC Alloys Limited 4 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

concerns the payment made by the assessee towards management support services received from its holding company.The learned TPO was of the view that the aforesaid intra-group service transaction required to be examined with reference to the tests of need, benefit and actual rendition of services by the Associated Enterprise. In paragraph 9.3 of the order passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, the learned TPO recorded a finding that the assessee had failed to furnish adequate documentary evidence demonstrating the actual rendition of services by the Associated Enterprise. According to the learned TPO, the assessee had also failed to substantiate the basis of incurrence of costs by the service provider, the methodology adopted for allocation of such costs amongst the group entities, and the manner in which the proportionate costs attributable to the assessee had been determined. Proceeding on the aforesaid premises, the learned TPO rejected the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") adopted by the assessee for benchmarking the international transaction relating to management support services. Invoking the "Other Method" under Rule 10AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the learned TPO determined the Arm's Length Price of the said transaction at Nil and consequently proposed an adjustment of Rs.20,49,05,661/- in respect of the payment made by the assessee towards management support services.The Assessing Officer, while framing the draft assessment order dated 03.03.2025, incorporated

EWAC Alloys Limited 5 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the learned TPO.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the variations proposed in the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the learned DRP under Section 144C of the Act. It was specifically contended before the DRP that an identical transfer pricing adjustment made in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2021-22 had already been deleted by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. The learned DRP, however, observed that the Revenue had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the said decision of the Tribunal and, therefore, following its own directions issued for Assessment Year 2021-22, directed the Assessing Officer to retain the transfer pricing adjustment.

2.3 Consequently, in conformity with the directions issued by the learned DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned final assessment order, wherein the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.20,49,05,661/- in respect of the payment for management support services was sustained and added to the total income of the assessee. This has led to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

EWAC Alloys Limited 6 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

the submission made before the lower authorities along with copy of the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2021-2022.

4.1 It was submitted that during the transfer pricing proceedings, the learned Transfer Pricing Officer determined the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") of the said international transaction at 'Nil' and consequently proposed an adjustment of ₹20.49 crores on the premise that the assessee had failed to establish the actual rendition of services and the benefits derived therefrom. The Dispute Resolution Panel affirmed the adjustment.

4.2 The learned Senior Counsel contended that the issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded in favour of the assessee

EWAC Alloys Limited 7 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2021-22, vide order dated 17.11.2025, rendered on identical facts and under the very same Management Support Services Agreement. It was submitted that neither the terms of the agreement nor the nature, scope or character of the services received have undergone any change during the year under consideration. The services comprising Human Resources, Information Technology, Finance, Taxation, Legal, Procurement, Supply Chain Management, Quality Control, Sales, Marketing, Administrative and Strategic Support are identical to those examined by the Tribunal in the immediately preceding assessment year.

4.3 The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that before the Transfer Pricing Officer as well as the Dispute Resolution Panel, the assessee had placed on record voluminous documentary evidence comprising, inter alia, the Management Support Services Agreement, cost allocation workings, supplementary benchmarking study, e-mail correspondences, invoices, contemporaneous documentation and functional evidence demonstrating the actual rendition of services together with the commercial benefits derived by the assessee. According to him, these evidences have neither been properly appreciated nor effectively controverted by the Transfer Pricing Officer.

EWAC Alloys Limited 8 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

4.4 It was further argued that the assessee had benchmarked the impugned transaction by adopting the Transactional Net Margin Method ("TNMM") on an aggregated basis. Under the benchmarking analysis, the comparable net margins ranged between 2.75% and 5.14%, with a median margin of 3.30%, whereas the assessee had earned a Net Profit Margin of 16.13%, after considering the impugned management fee as part of its operating costs. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the transaction therefore fully satisfied the arm's length standard and no separate adjustment was warranted.

4.5 Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that the assessee had also undertaken an independent supplementary benchmarking analysis specifically for the management support services. Under such analysis, the mark-up of 5% charged by ESAB UK on indirect costs was compared with the mark-up earned by comparable independent service providers operating in Europe. The study demonstrated that the three-year weighted average mark-up of comparable companies ranged from 0.96% to 7.49%, with a median of 3.14%, thereby establishing that the 5% mark-up charged by the Associated Enterprise was well within the arm's length range prescribed under the Indian transfer pricing provisions.

EWAC Alloys Limited 9 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

4.6 The learned Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal, while deciding the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2021- 22, after an elaborate examination of the documentary evidence, categorically accepted the assessee's claim regarding actual rendition of management support services and the commercial benefits accruing therefrom. The Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the assessee had substantiated the receipt of services through extensive documentary evidence including inter-company agreements, cost allocation workings and contemporaneous correspondence. The Tribunal further observed that strategic and managerial services rendered within a multinational group cannot always be correlated with immediate or quantifiable financial benefits and that insistence upon a one-to-one demonstration of benefit is commercially unrealistic.

4.7 The learned Counsel particularly relied upon the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench to the effect that, in view of the service agreement, cost allocation workings, supplementary benchmarking analysis and documentary evidence evidencing group-level functional support, it could not be concluded that no services had been rendered. The Tribunal further held that the 5% mark-up applied by the Associated Enterprise was fully consistent with paragraph 7.61 of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, 2020 governing low value-adding intra-group services and that the supplementary benchmarking study also established that such

EWAC Alloys Limited 10 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

mark-up fell within the arm's length range. Consequently, the Tribunal directed deletion of the entire transfer pricing adjustment.

4.8 The learned Counsel submitted that since the facts, evidences, contractual framework and benchmarking methodology for the year under consideration remain identical to those considered by the Coordinate Bench in Assessment Year 2021-22, the principle of judicial consistency requires that the same view be followed in the present year as well.

4.9 He further submitted that the Dispute Resolution Panel, while acknowledging the Tribunal's decision in the immediately preceding assessment year, nevertheless sustained the adjustment primarily on the ground that the Department was contemplating filing an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and that granting relief at the stage of the Panel would deprive the Revenue of its appellate remedy. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such reasoning is wholly alien to the scheme of the Act and cannot constitute a legally sustainable basis for affirming an addition. The mere possibility of a further appeal against an earlier order does not dilute its binding force upon the subordinate authorities so long as the said order continues to hold the field.

4.10 It was accordingly submitted that the action of the Dispute Resolution Panel in disregarding the binding decision of the

EWAC Alloys Limited 11 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

Coordinate Bench and sustaining the addition merely to keep the issue alive for the Revenue is contrary to settled judicial discipline and violates the well-established doctrine of consistency as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [(1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)]. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned transfer pricing adjustment of ₹20,49,05,661/- be deleted in its entirety.

5.1 The learned Departmental Representative contended that the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2021-22 cannot be mechanically applied to the present year, as the relief granted therein was founded upon the

EWAC Alloys Limited 12 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

documentary evidence available on record for that assessment year. According to him, the factual foundation in the present year is materially different, inasmuch as the assessee has failed to establish, by contemporaneous evidence, the actual rendition of services by the Associated Enterprise ("AE").

5.2 It was further submitted that despite repeated requisitions made by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish reliable documentary evidence demonstrating (i) the actual costs incurred by the AE in rendering the alleged services; (ii) the audited financial statements of the AE evidencing such expenditure; (iii) the basis and correctness of the allocation keys adopted for apportioning the common costs amongst the beneficiary group entities; and (iv) the material establishing that only a mark-up of 5% had been recovered by the AE. In the absence of these foundational documents, the benchmarking analysis undertaken by the assessee lacks credibility and cannot be accepted.

5.3 The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has also failed to satisfy the well-recognised need test, benefit test, and rendition test, which constitute the essential parameters for evaluating intra-group service transactions. The documents relied upon by the assessee merely describe group-level policies, internal manuals, training material and administrative functions, without establishing that any specific services were

EWAC Alloys Limited 13 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

actually rendered to the assessee or that such services conferred any real commercial or economic benefit upon its business. Mere production of inter-company agreements, invoices, e-mail correspondence or cost allocation schedules, according to the Revenue, does not discharge the burden of proving the actual rendition of services.

5.4 The learned Departmental Representative further submitted that Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with Sections 92C and 92D of the Income-tax Act, mandates maintenance of contemporaneous documentation establishing the nature of the services rendered, the costs incurred by the service provider, the basis of allocation, the commercial necessity of the services and the benefit derived therefrom. Since the assessee has failed to produce such primary evidence, it has not discharged the statutory onus cast upon it.

5.5 In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield India (P.) Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 730 (Delhi)], wherein the Court held that it is not sufficient merely to establish that certain services were rendered; the taxpayer must also demonstrate the specific activities performed, the costs relatable thereto and the benefit accruing therefrom, so as to enable determination of the arm's length nature of the payment.

EWAC Alloys Limited 14 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

5.6 The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2010) 8 ITR (Trib.) 95 (Bang.)], wherein it was held that the assessee must establish that the payments made are commensurate with the nature, volume and quality of the services received and that, in the absence of evidence demonstrating corresponding commercial benefit, the Transfer Pricing Officer is justified in making an adjustment.

5.7 Reliance was further placed upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [(2011) 137 TTJ 21 (Mum.)], wherein, following the decision in Gemplus India Pvt. Ltd., it was observed that where the taxpayer fails to demonstrate commensurate benefit from the intra-group services, determination of the Arm's Length Price at 'Nil' is legally permissible.

5.8 The learned Departmental Representative also referred to the decision of the Bangalore Bench in Crane Software International Ltd. v. ACIT [(2014) 52 taxmann.com 19 (Bang. - Trib.)], wherein it was held that where the assessee is unable to establish by contemporaneous evidence that any services were actually rendered by the Associated Enterprise, the inter-company agreements by themselves constitute self-serving documents and cannot justify the

EWAC Alloys Limited 15 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

payment, thereby warranting determination of the Arm's Length Price at 'Nil'.

5.9 Further reliance was placed upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench in Lintas India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2023) 153 taxmann.com 610 (Mumbai - Trib.)], wherein the Tribunal held that where the assessee fails to establish the necessity of the services, their actual rendition, the benefits derived therefrom and the supporting documentation, the Comparable Uncontrolled Price ("CUP") Method may legitimately result in determination of the Arm's Length Price at 'Nil', since no independent enterprise would agree to make payment for services which neither satisfy a commercial need nor confer any demonstrable benefit.

5.10 The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench in EOS Power India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 862/Mum/2013), wherein it was reiterated that the taxpayer must establish the need test, benefit test, rendition test and demonstrate that the services are neither duplicative nor in the nature of shareholder activities. Failure to satisfy these requirements, according to the said decision, justifies determination of the Arm's Length Price at 'Nil'.

5.11 Reliance was further placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Principal CIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.

EWAC Alloys Limited 16 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

[(2020) 122 taxmann.com 171 (Mad.)], wherein the High Court upheld the determination of the Arm's Length Price at 'Nil', observing that where the assessee fails to produce documentary evidence before the Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel to establish the commercial justification for the payment, no interference with the determination made by the Transfer Pricing Officer is warranted.

5.12 The learned Departmental Representative also referred to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, particularly paragraphs 7.6 and 7.8, to contend that an intra-group service can be recognised only where the activity provides economic or commercial value to the recipient enterprise and reliable documentation exists establishing that the service provider actually incurred the relevant costs in rendering such services.

5.13 It was further submitted that the voluminous paper book produced by the assessee does not materially advance its case, since a substantial part thereof consists of generic group-level manuals, policy documents, software user guides, training material and internal communications which neither establish the actual rendition of services to the assessee nor demonstrate any commercial benefit arising therefrom. According to the Revenue, had the services genuinely been rendered, the assessee, being an auditable corporate entity, would necessarily possess

EWAC Alloys Limited 17 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

contemporaneous records such as internal requisitions, approvals, work orders, deliverables, timesheets, service reports, utilisation records, invoices, accounting support documents and payment approvals. The absence of such primary evidence, according to the learned Departmental Representative, is fatal to the assessee's claim.

5.14 The learned Departmental Representative lastly submitted that each assessment year constitutes a separate unit of assessment and, therefore, the decision rendered in Assessment Year 2021-22 cannot automatically govern the present year, particularly when the factual matrix and evidentiary record materially differ. He, therefore, prayed that the orders of the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel be upheld and the impugned transfer pricing adjustment be sustained.

“9.4 The primary issue for consideration is whether the management support services availed by the assessee from its AE satisfy the arm's length principle as per Section 92C of the Act and the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2020), and

EWAC Alloys Limited 18 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

whether the documentation provided adequately demonstrates the nature, need, and benefit of such services. 9.5 The assessee placed reliance on extensive documentation, including inter- company agreements, cost allocation workings, and internal communications, to substantiate its claim that the services were rendered and beneficial to its operations. The assessee's position is that these services contributed to group- level efficiency, managerial guidance, and functional support across departments, and that inclusion of these costs within the TNMM cost base adequately captures their arm's length character. 9.6 The assessee further submitted that, given the nature of the services received from the group, it is not feasible to establish a one-to-one correlation between each individual service and a corresponding quantifiable benefit. Many of these services, particularly those of a strategic and managerial nature, contribute to the assessee's business outcomes over an extended period, with benefits potentially accruing in subsequent financial years rather than being confined to the year of receipt. Accordingly, precise quantification of benefit attributable to each service is commercially impractical. 9.7 A comparison of key financial indicators demonstrates improvement following receipt of such services: Particulars FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Revenue from Operations Rs. 20,560.01 lakhs 23,888.59 lakhs Profit Before Tax (PBT) 1,861.20 lakhs 3,839.44 lakhs PBT % 9.05% 16.07%

9.8 From the above, it is evident that the company derived measurable business benefit during and after the year of receipt of management support services. 9.9 The Ld.AR submitted that the services received from the ESAB Group, spanning managerial, IT, HR, finance, tax, and legal functions, have been critical to the assessee's operational success and strategic decision-making. Given the organizational structure and limited internal resources, the support from the group was necessary and beneficial in enhancing the assessee's efficiency, compliance, and profitability. 9.10 It was further submitted that during the transfer pricing proceedings, a supplementary benchmarking analysis specific to management charges was also conducted. In this analysis, the assessee compared the mark-ups charged by similar service providers in the European region with the 5% mark-up on indirect costs applied by the AE. The comparable range of mark-ups was found to be 3.96% to 9.57%, with a median of 5.37%, indicating that the charges levied by the AE were well within the arm's length range.

EWAC Alloys Limited 19 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

9.11 However, the Ld.TPO held that the evidences furnished were largely generic in nature, comprising routine emails, information exchanges, and internal presentations, which did conclusively demonstrate the specific need or tangible benefit to not the assessee. The Ld.TPO therefore determined the ALP of the impugned payment at NIL. 10. Having examined both sides, it is noted that Chapter VII of the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2020) prescribes a two-step analysis for intra-group services: 1. Whether a service has in fact been rendered and has provided an economic or commercial benefit to the recipient (the benefit test); and 2. Whether the charge for such service is consistent with the arm's length principle. 10.1 The OECD Guidelines clarify that shareholder or duplicative activities do not constitute chargeable services. However, they also recognise that routine managerial, administrative, and support services, even if not directly revenue- generating, can provide legitimate value to the recipient. For such low value- adding services, the Guidelines advocate a simplified cost-based approach with a reasonable mark-up, provided that the allocation keys are rational and the benefits reasonably demonstrable. 10.2 In the present case, while the Ld. TPO was justified in scrutinising the sufficiency of evidence, the blanket determination of ALP at NIL does not fully align with the OECD framework, particularly when the assessee has furnished documentation suggesting that certain managerial ог coordination services were in fact rendered and cost-allocated consistently. The inclusion of management support fees within the TNMM cost base does not, by itself, prove benefit, but it is a relevant corroborative factor indicating that these costs formed an integral part of the business operations. 10.3 It is also noted that the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ESAB UK for AY 2021-22 (the AE in present fact) is also misplaced. That decision dealt with the characterisation of receipts in the hands of the non-resident AE under the Fee for Technical Services (FTS) provisions, and not with the arm's-length determination of the corresponding payment in the hands of the payer. The finding that certain managerial services were not taxable as FTS cannot be equated with proof of rendition or benefit for transfer-pricing purposes. Each transaction must be benchmarked independently, based on the evidence and facts of the relevant year. 10.4 In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the Ld.TPO has accepted part of the management service payment as being at arm's length, which implicitly acknowledges that the Associated Enterprise rendered certain managerial and support services to the assessee. This factual finding indicates that the benefit

EWAC Alloys Limited 20 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

test is satisfied at least in part and that the assessee did derive value from the intra-group arrangements. 10.5 In this backdrop, a complete determination of the remaining portion of management charges at NIL appears inconsistent with the OECD's balanced framework, which emphasises that intra-group services must be evaluated on their nature, necessity, and benefit, and not summarily disregarded in the absence of exact quantification. The OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines (2020) recognise that routine or low value-adding services, such as managerial, HR, IT, or legal coordination may not yield direct measurable outcomes, but nonetheless provide economic or operational advantages warranting appropriate compensation, provided that allocation keys are reasonable and documentation demonstrates the context of benefit. 10.6 Given the evidence placed on record such as the service agreement, cost allocation workings, supplementary benchmarking analysis, and correspondence showing group-level functional support it cannot be concluded that no services were rendered. At the same time, the benefit and need for certain elements (especially within HR, IT, and legal functions) may warrant closer scrutiny to ensure the absence of duplicative or shareholder-related activities. 10.7 Accordingly, while the TPO's cautious approach in verifying the evidentiary sufficiency is justified, an outright disallowance of the disputed INR 8.8 crores is not fully aligned with the OECD framework or with the TPO's own acceptance of partial services.”

6.1 There can be no quarrel with the proposition that where the facts and evidentiary record are identical, judicial discipline and the doctrine of consistency ordinarily require that a Coordinate Bench follow the earlier decision. Equally, it is well settled that each assessment year constitutes a separate unit of assessment and the applicability of an earlier decision necessarily depends upon the identity of the underlying factual matrix and the evidentiary material available on record.

6.2 In the present case, the Revenue has specifically contended that, unlike the preceding assessment year, the assessee did not

EWAC Alloys Limited 21 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

furnish before the Transfer Pricing Officer the primary documentary evidence necessary to establish the actual rendition of management support services, the commercial need for such services, the benefits derived therefrom, the costs incurred by the Associated Enterprise and the basis of allocation thereof. The Department has also contended that the documentary material relied upon before us was either not produced before the Transfer Pricing Officer or was not examined by him while determining the Arm's Length Price. The assessee, on the other hand, has asserted that adequate material exists to substantiate its claim.

Having regard to the rival contentions and upon a careful examination of the assessment records, we find that the Transfer Pricing Officer has not had the benefit of examining the complete documentary evidence now relied upon by the assessee in support of the need test, benefit test and rendition test. Since the factual verification of these documents forms the very foundation for determination of the Arm's Length Price, we are of the considered opinion that the issue cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the appellate stage without such examination by the Transfer Pricing Officer.

6.3 Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned adjustment, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall produce

EWAC Alloys Limited 22 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

before the Transfer Pricing Officer all relevant contemporaneous documentary evidence, including but not limited to the Management Support Services Agreement, evidence demonstrating the actual rendition of services, documents establishing the commercial necessity and benefits derived from such services, cost allocation workings, supporting documents evidencing the costs incurred by the Associated Enterprise, the basis of allocation amongst the group entities, benchmarking analysis and such other material as may be necessary to substantiate its claim.

6.4 The Transfer Pricing Officer shall examine the aforesaid material objectively, afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and thereafter determine the Arm's Length Price in accordance with law. While undertaking such exercise, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall duly keep in view the principles of law and the findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2021-22, to the extent the factual matrix, evidentiary record and contractual arrangements are found to be identical. Needless to observe, if upon such examination the factual position is found to be the same as that considered by the Coordinate Bench in the earlier year, the Revenue shall maintain judicial consistency unless there exist distinguishing facts or any binding judicial precedent taking a contrary view.

EWAC Alloys Limited 23 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

6.5 We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the rival contentions. All issues are left open for fresh consideration by the Transfer Pricing Officer in accordance with law. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 2.4 are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/07/2026 Kunal Kr, P.S.

EWAC Alloys Limited 24 IT (TP) A No. 2195/MUM/2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai