Additional evidence and segmental accounts justified remand for fresh transfer pricing benchmarking and internal CUP verification.

Relevant additional evidence and segmental accounts were admitted because they were necessary for proper transfer pricing determination, including verification of expense allocation and comparable pricing. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer to examine the material and conduct fresh benchmarking of the international transactions, including internal CUP comparison where relevant. As the existing record was incomplete for a final merits finding, the transfer pricing adjustments were remitted for de novo verification after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, and the appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the additional evidence and segmental accounts filed by the assessee should be admitted and considered for transfer pricing determination. (ii) Whether the transfer pricing adjustments arising from the impugned international transactions required fresh benchmarking and verification on remand, including comparison with internal CUP and allocation of expenses.

Issue (i): Whether the additional evidence and segmental accounts filed by the assessee should be admitted and considered for transfer pricing determination.

Analysis: The assessee produced additional material relating to segmental profitability and allocation of expenses, asserting that the accounts and business functions were consistent with later years and that the earlier transfer pricing study was incomplete. The material was treated as relevant for proper determination of the arm's length price, and its admission was considered necessary for complete adjudication.

Conclusion: The additional evidence and segmental accounts were admitted and directed to be examined by the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustments arising from the impugned international transactions required fresh benchmarking and verification on remand, including comparison with internal CUP and allocation of expenses.

Analysis: The transfer pricing adjustments were not finally sustained on the existing record because the newly produced material required verification of expense allocation, segmental reporting, and the price comparison of discounts in controlled and uncontrolled transactions. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh benchmarking of the international transactions on the basis of the additional evidence and after affording opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustments were remitted for de novo verification and benchmarking by the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained remand on the transfer pricing issues, and the appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes without a final merits determination of the adjustments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where relevant additional evidence is necessary for proper transfer pricing benchmarking, especially for segmental allocation and internal comparability, the matter may be remitted for fresh verification rather than decided on an incomplete record.

---