Appeal partially allowed, issues remanded for re-examination. Upheld adjustments, reconsideration on specific matters.

The appeal was partly allowed, with several issues remanded back to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for re-examination and others dismissed based on legal precedents and statutory provisions. The Tribunal upheld certain adjustments while directing reconsideration on specific issues, ultimately emphasizing the application of relevant laws and precedents in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for the transactions in question.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
3. Approval of Commissioner of Income Tax.
4. Charging or computation provisions under Chapter X.
5. Disallowance under section 40A(2).
6. Demonstration of tax evasion motive.
7. Consistency with earlier and subsequent years.
8. Use of multiple year data.
9. Methodology and process in arriving at the Arm's Length Price (ALP).
10. Segmentation between manufacturing and trading operations.
11. Operating efficiency adjustment.
12. Excise duty adjustment.
13. Customs duty adjustment.
14. Profit Level Indicator (PLI) computation.
15. Adjustments for differences.
16. Adjustment for Associated Enterprises (AE) transactions.
17. Benefit of +/- 5% Safe Harbour.
18. Jurisdiction of CIT (Appeals) under section 251.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The assessee claimed the assessment order was passed hastily without proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal found no merit in this claim, noting no evidence was provided to establish the violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Reference to TPO:
The assessee argued the reference to the TPO was made without proper application of mind. The Tribunal upheld the reference, citing CBDT's Circular No.3 of 2003 which mandates reference to TPO in cases where international transactions exceed Rs.5 Crores.

3. Approval of Commissioner of Income Tax:
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's approval for making a reference to the TPO is an administrative approval based on appraisal of Form 3CEB and does not require detailed reasons or a hearing.

4. Charging or computation provisions under Chapter X:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's argument that Chapter X adjustments are bad in law, stating that the provisions are special anti-avoidance measures that override other provisions of the Act.

5. Disallowance under section 40A(2):
The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that disallowance under Chapter X should be made under section 40A(2), emphasizing that Chapter X provisions override other provisions of the Act.

6. Demonstration of tax evasion motive:
The Tribunal held that it is not necessary for the TPO to demonstrate tax avoidance or diversion of income for invoking provisions of section 92C and 92CA of the Act, citing the case of Coca Cola India Inc.

7. Consistency with earlier and subsequent years:
The Tribunal dismissed the argument that the TPO should not have made adjustments for the year under consideration based on consistency with other years, stating that the determination of ALP is a factual matter and variations can occur year to year.

8. Use of multiple year data:
The Tribunal upheld the use of current year data by the TPO, stating that Rule 10B(4) mandates the use of contemporaneous data, even if it was not available to the assessee at the time of preparing its T.P. documentation.

9. Methodology and process in arriving at the ALP:
The Tribunal found no infirmity in the TPO's methodology and process, noting that the TPO is empowered to gather reliable information and reject incorrect documentation.

10. Segmentation between manufacturing and trading operations:
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that trading and manufacturing activities are closely inter-linked and should be evaluated together at the entity level using the 'Combined Transaction Approach'.

11. Operating efficiency adjustment:
The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO for re-examination, noting the need for a fresh examination of the interplay between material cost, operating costs, and operational efficiency.

12. Excise duty adjustment:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground on excise duty adjustment, directing the TPO to exclude excise duty from sales and costs for both the assessee and comparable companies.

13. Customs duty adjustment:
The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the TPO for re-examination, directing a holistic perspective keeping in mind the decisions in Skoda Auto (P.) Ltd. and Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

14. PLI computation:
The Tribunal dismissed the ground for using cash PLI or PBDIT to sales, noting that in asset-intensive industries like automobile manufacturing, depreciation is a significant cost that cannot be excluded from the comparability analysis.

15. Adjustments for differences:
The Tribunal found no merit in the claim for adjustments due to global increase in steel prices, dealership network investments, or start-up phase, stating that these factors do not warrant adjustments under TNMM.

16. Adjustment for AE transactions:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision that ALP adjustments should be restricted to transactions with AE's only and remitted the matter back to the TPO for computation.

17. Benefit of +/- 5% Safe Harbour:
The Tribunal dismissed this ground, citing the retrospective amendment to section 92C(2A) by the Finance Act, 2012, which clarified that the +/- 5% variation is allowed only to justify the price charged in international transactions and not for adjustment purposes.

18. Jurisdiction of CIT (Appeals) under section 251:
The Tribunal found no reason to hold that the CIT(Appeals) exceeded his jurisdiction under section 251 in directing the TPO to recompute the ALP adjustment and declined to interfere.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with several issues remanded back to the TPO for re-examination and others dismissed based on legal precedents and statutory provisions.

---