“most appropriate method”

Transfer PricingSection 92CSection 92C1,345 judgments

The decision most relied on for most appropriate method is CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd. (367 ITR 730), cited in 120 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on most appropriate method

CIT v. Cushman & Wakefield (India) (P.) Ltd.

367 ITR 730 · 2014 · High Court

120

citing judgments

This case determines the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for intra-group services and reimbursements, clarifying when charges constitute services warranting a mark-up versus mere pass-through costs. It provides guidance on the circumstances under which an ALP adjustment, including an ALP of 'nil', is appropriate for such transactions.

Dresser-Rand India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

13 Taxmann.com 82 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot disregard an assessee's decision to avail services from associated enterprises, even if the assessee has internal expertise, as the determination of necessity is the assessee's prerogative. The Transfer Pricing Officer's role is to determine the arm's length price, not the need for the service itself.

CIT v. EHPT India P Ltd.

350 ITR 41 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The headcount method is an appropriate allocation key for indirect expenses between eligible and non-eligible units when it has been consistently accepted by revenue authorities and there is no just cause for abandoning it. Deviation from a consistently followed and accepted method can disturb or distort profits.

Mobis India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

38 Taxmann.com 231 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

A working capital adjustment is unreliable if it is based on broad approximations, estimations, and assumptions, and the assessee fails to demonstrate how the adjustment was arrived at.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

29 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The 'bright line test' is not an appropriate method for determining the existence of an international transaction for calculating arm's length price. This ruling overrules prior special bench decisions on AMP expenses.

Magneti Marelli Powertrain India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

389 ITR 469 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) or Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot dispute the application of the TNMM method if they have already accepted it as the most appropriate method for certain international transactions, especially when other transactions are intrinsically linked.

Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Aurangabad

30 SOT 319 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Tribunal may allow adjustments for differences between the tested party and comparable companies to eliminate material differences, provided accurate and credible evidence is furnished.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 v. Matrix Cellular International Services (P.) Ltd.

90 Taxmann.com 54 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The Resale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of a distributor who does not add significant value to the goods purchased.

Judgments citing most appropriate method

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) (1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Inductotherm (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 598/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 92C

erred in not considering the internal transactional net margin method as the most appropriate method even though the said workings were submitted by the Assessee on without prejudice basis. It is therefore prayed that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Ld. AO / Ld. TPO be deleted based ... assessee, in its transfer pricing study, aggregated its transactions and adopted TNMM on an entity-wide basis, justifying that it was the most appropriate method for benchmarking its international transactions due to the volume, complexity, and the nature of its business. and CO No.10/Ahd/2024 (By Assessee) The Asstt.CIT vs. Inductotherm

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Hazira Lng. Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 558/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Office No.2008, Westgage Vs Ahmedabad. Block-D, Makarba, Sg Highway Ahmedabad 380051. Pan : Aaach 9143 C Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Shell Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs (Formerly Known As M/S.Hqzira Lng P.Ltd.) Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaach 9143 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate, Shri Vishal Kalra & Ss Tomar, Ars. Revenue By : Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit-Dr Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathese Are Cross-Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 23.09.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.435 & 558/Ahd/2022

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 92D

account of purchase of LNG from AE. 23. The AO rejected the TP study by the assessee, where choosing RPM as the most appropriate method (MAP) the assessee had bench marked the transaction as being at arms length.The TPO selected external CUP as the most appropriate method and selected ... rejected the methodology adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions pertaining to purchase of LNG. He rejected RPM as the most appropriate method to benchmark the primary transaction pertaining to distribution of R- LNG, on the following grounds: • Comparables adopted by the assessee [Petronet LNG Limited

Shell Energy India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 435/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri (Dr.) Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 92D

ACIT, Circle- 27(2), New Delhi vs. Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2795/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

manufacturing products in India. To bench mark its international transactions Assessee, compared its entity level PLI (OP/Sales) with external comparables using TNMM as most appropriate method. Assessee computed its PLI at 1.41% and that all comparables at 3.62%. Based on these analysis, the Assessee claimed that its international transaction ... considering the functional profile and FAR analysis issued show cause notice on 26/12/2014 to the Assessee. Ld. TPO accepted TNMM as the most appropriate method for bench marking the international transactions. During the TP proceeding the TPO sought updated margin of the comparables on single year data basis. Updated margin

Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2742/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

Yutaka Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1607/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

Osi Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2379/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.2379/Hyd/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

software services was about Rs.19.91 crores and the provision of IT enabled services was about Rs.6.96 crores. Assessee adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method and taking OP by OC as PLI, calculated its margin at 17.95% in respect of provision of software services and 20.25% in respect of provision

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Everest Kanto Cylinder Lad wherein it was held that guarantee is an international transaction. [Page 870 of PB] b. CUP method is the most appropriate method to benchmark the transaction. [Page 866 of PB]. As regards the determination of the guarantee fee, it was held that KHL cannot be rated

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Asiatic Colour Chem Industries Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Jt.. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92C

unrelated parties. Thus, the assessee agreed that the transaction made with AEs are not at ALP. As regards to application of CUP as most appropriate method, the Assessing Officer observed that there is no difference of opinion between the assessee and TPO but the manner in which

Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 215/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S. Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd., A-201, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076, Pan No. : Aabcr7091N. ….. Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ms. Nikhila Bhalla and Archita Bhalla Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)

Disregarding the remand proceedings directed during DRP proceedings, wherein the benchmarking was conducted based on the TNMM as the most appropriate method. 1.3 The Ld. AO and Hon’ble DRP confirming the Ld. TPO’s action erred on facts and in law in disregarding the Transactional Net Margin Method (‘TNMM ... most appropriate method for determining the arm’s length price of payment of service fees and applying the ‘Other Method’ in contravention of Rule 10B of the Rules Adjustment relating to international transactions pertaining to provision of software support services: 1.4 On facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred

Micro Focus Software Inc., Usa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4768/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrimicro Focus Software Inc. V/S. Dcit,(International Tax) बनाम (Formerly Known As Novell Circle 3(2)(2), Inc.) 16Th Floor, Air India Laurel, Block D, 65/2, Building, Nariman Point, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Mumbai-400021 Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka, India- 560093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5034F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270A

service PE under Article 5(2)(1). On the second question the AAR ruled that the transactional net margin method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method for the determination of the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in respect of the service agreement dated 14-4-2005 and it meets

M/S Emerson Automation Solutions Intelligent Platforms Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, C-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the Ground Nos

ITA 9/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedm/S Emersion Automation Solutios The Deputy Commissioner Intelligent Platforms Private Limited Of Income Tax, Circle- (Formerly M/S Ge Intelligent 3(1)(2), Bmtc Building, Platforms Private Limited), Velankani Vs. Koramangala, Bangalore Tech Park, Building 9, First Floor, 43 Hosur Road, Bangalore-560100 Pan – Aaacg7573K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. Rishabh Malhotra, Advocates Revenue By: Sri. Subramanian. S, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav,J.M. Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of Ld. Ao / Drp Dated 30Th October, 2018. The Assessee Has Raised 19 Grounds Of Appeal Out Of Which Ground Nos. 1 To 5 Are General In Nature & Hence Not Required Specific Adjudication. Ground No. 6 Related To The Grievance Of The Assessee With Respect To The Adjustment Of Custom Duty, Base Cost, Working Capital Not Granted By The Ao While Completing The Assessment. Ground No. 7 Is With Respect To The Applicability Of Tnmm Method Instead Of Rpm Method Applied By The Assessee For Its Trading Segment Transactions. Ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 Are Related To The Rejection Of Comparability Analysis Conducted By The Tpo As Affirmed By The Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 11 Is With Respect To The Adjustment Of Working Capital Denied By Tpo Affirmed By Drp & Followed By Ao. Ground No. 12 Is With Respect To The Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation & Ground Nos. 13 & 14 Is With Respect To The Payments Made To Headquarters In Lieu Of Services Obtained By Applying

For Appellant: Sri. Sachit Jolly & Sri. RishabhFor Respondent: Sri. Subramanian. S, JCIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 271(1)(b)Section 5

related to trading and distribution segment. Since, we have already set aside the AMP expenses issue and the issue of applying the most appropriate method for benchmarking the trading segment transactions, to the file of the TPO, we direct the TPO to examine this contention of the assessee fresh

DCIT, Circle -1 (1), Tirupati vs. Dasan India Private Limited, Vijaywada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H Srinivasulu, AdvFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-

Section 143(3)

Length Price (“ALP”) was referred to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer (“ Ld. TPO”). The assessee had adopted Resale Price Method(“RPM”) as Most Appropriate Method (“MAM”) in the TP study report. Ld. TPO by order dated 29/12/2020, rejected RPM as MAM and adopting the Transaction Net Margin Method (“TNMM

Borgwarner Emissions Systems India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2015/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

method-CUP method. 24 In the given facts and circumstances, it was held that once the TPO had applied TNM method as the most appropriate method, it was not open to the TPO to determine arm’s length price in respect of the sole element i.e. payment ... uncontrolled conditions. The factors and methods incorporated in this section are not exhaustive. CBDT has been empowered to prescribe further factors and methods. Most appropriate method is to be adopted in relation to an international transaction for determination of ALP. In this regard, nature of transaction or class of transaction

Gates India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2379/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

purposes of determination of ALP in terms of Section 92C(1) of the Act, the assessee adopted cost based TNMM method as most appropriate method for all aggregate intra-group services/transactions because all the transactions are closely interlinked and subsumed in the business operation of the company on continuous basis ... Transfer Pricing Adjustment had ever been made. (b) However, during the assessment year under consideration, the TPO/AO accepted the TNMM method as the most appropriate method and applied the same to all intra-group transactions except the management charges claimed in question. The TPO segregated the management services from other

Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3089/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.(Tp)A. No.62/Chny/2018 & I.T.A. No. 3089/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2013-14 M/S. Kubota Agricultural Machinery Vs. The Asstt./Dy. Commissioner Of India Private Limited, No. 15, Income Tax, Medavakkam Road, Sholinganallur, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 119. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadck5472E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate & Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals In It(Tp)A No. 62/Chny/2018 & Ita No. 3089/Chny/2017 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Dated 03.10.2018 & 10.10.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the AO/DRP/TPO for rejecting Resale Price Method [RPM] as Most Appropriate Method [MAM] and erroneous application of Berry Ratio at the profit level indicator in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Brief facts as emanating ... No.62/Chny/18 & ITA No. 3089/Chny/17 of transactions are reflecting in para 4 of the TPO’s order. The assessee preferred Resale Price Method as most appropriate method in respect of transactions pertaining to purchase of goods from its Associated Enterprises (AE). The assessee was asked to explain in adopting resale price

ADIT, Cirlce- 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6455/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(3)Section 92F

services from its AEs. 6. The Learned CIT(A)/ Learned AO/ Learned TPO have erred in not conducting the analysis of selecting the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) as prescribed under Rule 10C of the Rules and accordingly not documented the same as prescribed under Rule 10D of the Rules ... Rules 8. The Learned CIT(A)/ Learned AO/ Learned TPO have erred by upholding the adoption of CUP method as the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price in respect of the intra group services without identifying any comparable uncontrolled transaction(s) for the computation

American Express Banking Corp. (India Branch), New Delhi vs. ADIT, Cirlce- 1(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6253/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 92C(3)Section 92F

Toyota Tsusho India Private Limited, Bangaore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 72

which is evident from the order of the TPO. The assessee has used transactional net margin method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for determining the ALP with the associated enterprises. However, the TPO during the proceedings rejected the TP study furnished by the assessee and selected fresh comparable under