Transfer pricing and loss set-off issues were remanded for fresh verification, with no final deletion on merits.

Intra-group service charges were treated as business-related services, not as shareholder, stewardship, duplicate, incidental or on-call services, but the arm's length price under the transactional net margin method had not been examined in light of the prescribed method; the matter was restored to the TPO for fresh verification. Additions arising from processing of the return and the claim for set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation were found to require factual verification; those issues were restored to the jurisdictional AO for decision in accordance with law. The appeal resulted only in remand and statistical relief, without final deletion of the transfer pricing addition on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of intra-group service charges and the determination of their arm's length price required interference or remand; (ii) Whether the additions arising from the processing of return and the claim for set-off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation required verification by the Assessing Officer.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of intra-group service charges and the determination of their arm's length price required interference or remand?

Analysis: The services claimed were linked to the day-to-day business of the assessee and were not found to be shareholder, stewardship, duplicate, incidental, or on-call services. The expenditure was treated as having been incurred towards intra-group services, but the arm's length price adopted on the assessee's transactional net margin method basis had not been examined by the Transfer Pricing Officer in light of the prescribed method.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh examination of the arm's length price, and the assessee succeeded on this ground for statistical purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions arising from the processing of return and the claim for set-off of brought forward loss and unabsorbed depreciation required verification by the Assessing Officer?

Analysis: The grounds relating to the alleged incorrect addition made while processing the return and the claim for set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation were found to require factual examination and verification.

Conclusion: These issues were restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for verification and decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of remand and statistical relief, while the substantive transfer pricing addition was not finally deleted on merits.

---