TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has raised, inter alia, the following contentions in the present Miscellaneous Application: i. that the direction for verification of the issue relating to "other support services" amounts to enhancement of the assessment and permits reconsideration of relief already granted by the TPO/DRP; ii. that the issue relating to R&D support services and certain other grounds raised in the appeal have not been adjudicated; iii. that the contentions regarding the TPO's methodology, alleged double taxation by separate benchmarking and the conditions prescribed under section 92C(3) of the Act have not been considered; and iv. that the directions contained in paragraph 10 of the impugned order require clarifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised by the assessee in respect of the transfer-pricing adjustment. It was submitted that the assessee had challenged the rejection of TNMM and adoption of the "Other Method" by the Ld.TPO without identifying appropriate comparable data. The Ld.AR contended that the adjustment made on an ad hoc percentage basis, without adopting a prescribed method under section 92C of the Act, was unsustainable. 3.4. The Ld.AR also submitted that the payments towards R&D support services and other support services formed part of the assessee's consolidated cost base considered under TNMM. It was submitted that the assessee's margin under TNMM was above the median and, therefore, separate benchmarking of an individual component would result in double ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be clarified and restricted to verification of the assessee's claim limited to 50% of the disallowance made. 3.8. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the impugned order. It was submitted that the contentions raised by the assessee, except to the limited extent of clarification sought in respect of paragraph 10, seek a review of the order on merits and do not disclose any mistake apparent from record amenable to rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us. 4. It is alleged that Ground no.2.5 and 3 to 7 pertaining to adjustment made for R & D segment has been not adjudicated in the order dated 18/08/2025. It is also alleged that in respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.1.1. However, we note that it is a typographic error in not mentioning the R&D support service in para 9.2 of the impugned order by this Tribunal. Henceforth, para 9.2 shall be read as under: "9.2. Thus, we find that after considering the additional evidence and remand report, Ld. DRP has rightly upheld the rejection of TNMM applied by the assessee, and application of 'other method' while computing the ALP in respect of 'other support services'. However, the adhoc disallowance by holding that evidences and benefits of R&D support /other support services have not been provided by the assessee and the benchmarking adopted by fixing the ALP at 50% by the Ld. DRP is not as per the applicable provisions. We are of the considered o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om its AE. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the Ld.TPO only for the limited purpose of verifying the assessee's claim restricted to 50% of the disallowance made under both the. The Ld.TPO shall decide the issue in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We further clarify that, while the applicability of the Other Method was upheld in the order under consideration, the same cannot be construed as approval of the ad hoc determination of the ALP by the TPO at 50% of the transaction value. The Ld.TPO is required to determine the ALP in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 10AB and on the basis of relevant and reliable material. In the event the TPO finds, u....