Transfer pricing remand order did not raise a substantial question of law; Revenue's challenge was dismissed.

A remand order in a transfer pricing dispute did not, by itself, raise any substantial question of law where no determinative legal error was shown. The Tribunal had sent the matter back to the Transfer Pricing Officer for recalculation of the arm's length price on specified parameters, and the assessee noted that even after revising the profit level indicator the result would remain only marginally negative. On that basis, the HC declined interference and dismissed the Revenue's challenge, leaving its contentions open for consideration in an appropriate case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's remand order on transfer pricing comparables and arm's length price adjustment gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer for working out the transfer pricing adjustment on specified parameters. The assessee pointed out that even on revision of the profit level indicator, the result would remain marginally negative. In that background, the Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference, while leaving the Revenue's contentions open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Conclusion: The appeal was held not to merit adjudication on any substantial question of law and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the remand order failed, and the Tribunal's direction remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand order on transfer pricing adjustment does not, by itself, give rise to a substantial question of law when no determinative legal error is shown.

---