Transfer pricing aggregation and TNMM benchmarking sustained where concurrent findings and binding precedent barred selective method substitution.

The assessee's aggregation of manufacturing and trading transactions for transfer pricing and its use of TNMM were sustained because the DRP found, on the facts, that the business model required combined evaluation of the segments and that TNMM had been consistently applied. The Tribunal did not disturb those concurrent factual findings, and the legal position was treated as covered by binding precedent that once the most appropriate method is accepted, the revenue cannot selectively apply a different method to one element of the same transfer pricing exercise. No substantial question of law was found to arise for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's aggregation approach and Transactional Net Margin Method for benchmarking 13 international transactions could be disturbed in appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The Dispute Resolution Panel accepted the assessee's aggregation of transactions on the factual finding that the business model required a combined evaluation of the manufacturing and trading segments, and that the assessee had consistently applied TNMM for benchmarking. The Tribunal did not disturb those factual findings. The legal position was also found to be covered by the earlier binding decision holding that once a most appropriate method is accepted, it is not open to the revenue to selectively apply a different method to one element of the same transfer pricing exercise. In these circumstances, the proposed substantial question of law was treated as arising from concurrent factual findings and an issue already covered by precedent.

Conclusion: The aggregation approach and TNMM benchmarking were upheld, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

---