JUDGMENT : DEEPAK SIBAL, J. Invoking Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short – the Act), the assessee has preferred the present appeal to challenge therein the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-I, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as – the Tribunal). 2. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2006-07 and through the same, the assessee seeks to raise the following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in remanding the issue relating to transfer pricing adjustment by holding that the TPO had not given any reasons for rejection of the CUP method which finding is perverse and contrary to the record ? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the adjustment of abnormal operating expenses while determining the net operating margins of the Appellant while applying the TNMM method ? 3. Whether the Tribunal erred in considering Bajaj Auto Ltd. As perfect comparable ? 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the claim of depreciation on moulds ? 5. Whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the claim of sales tool expenses ?” 3. Qua question no. 1, Mr. Deepak Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant sought a favourable opinion from us as according to him, the Tribunal had erred in law by remanding the matter back to the Transfer Pricing Officer ( for short – the TPO) after holding that the TPO had not given any worthwhile reasons for discarding the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method for determination of the arm's length price, the data for which had been supplied to him by the appellant-assessee. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that adequate reasons had been given by the TPO for not applying the CUP method for determining the arm's length price and the Tribunal itself should have gone into those reasons and then opined on them rather than remanding the matter back to the TPO for fresh assessment. 4. We are not inclined to accept the afore-referred submission made on behalf of the appellant. 5. 4. We are not inclined to accept the afore-referred submission made on behalf of the appellant. 5. A perusal of the assessment order passed by the TPO shows that the appellant had entered into 14 international transactions and for determination of the arm's length price for these transactions at the hands of the TPO qua 12 of them, the appellant had applied both – the CUP method and Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM). The details with regard to the afore-referred international transactions are tabulated below :- Sr. No. Nature of transaction Method used by Assessee Value of transaction received Value of transaction paid Method PLI 1. Purchase of Motorcycle, Scooter Parts, Consumables and other supplies TNMM OP/Sales 18,48,17,733 2. Export of Scooters and Scooter parts CUP/TNMM OP/Sales 140,37,12,904 3. Purchase of fixed assets TNMM OP/Sales 21,37,15,816 4. Payment of export commission CUP/TNMM - 7,44,24,255 5. Payment of royalty CUP/TNMM - 57,26,60,430 6. Payment of technical know-how fee CUP/TNMM - 18,88,50,000 7. Payment of technical assistance fee CUP/TNMM - 2,42,24,247 8. Authorised test support fee CUP/TNMM - 9,39,717 9 Service fee CUP/TNMM - 28,87,498 10. Owner's manual charges CUP/TNMM - 34,13,309 11. Prototypic Development CUP/TNMM - 69,05,820 12. Reimbursement of expenses CUP/TNMM - 21,74,230 13. Warranty on scooters CUP/TNMM - 1,89,59,146 14. Recovery of expenses CUP/TNMM - 4,64,06,214 6. A perusal of the order passed by the TPO shows that for 09 of the afore-referred 12 transactions, for which the appellant-assessee had applied both – the CUP method and TNMM, no reasons have been given as to why the CUP method was being discarded for determining the arm's length price. Qua the afore-referred 09 transactions, the order of the TPO was scanned by us but it was found wanting of any discussion in it for not applying qua them the CUP method. Even for the remaining 03 transactions, vague and non-specific reasons were found. 7. As per Section 92-C of the Act, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction is required to be determined by applying any of the methods provided in the Section, which include, amongst other methods, the CUP method as also the TNMM. Even for the remaining 03 transactions, vague and non-specific reasons were found. 7. As per Section 92-C of the Act, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction is required to be determined by applying any of the methods provided in the Section, which include, amongst other methods, the CUP method as also the TNMM. When amongst others, both the above-referred methods are prescribed for determining the arm's length price and both have been applied by the assessee, then reasons as to why one over the other is being preferred, are required to be supplied by the TPO in the assessment order as the choice of one method over the other could work to the assessee's prejudice. 8. Section 92-C(1) of the Act pertains to the determination of the arm's length price in relation to “an” international transaction. Section 92-F (ii) defines arm's length price to mean a price, which is applied or proposed to be applied in “a” transaction between persons other than associated enterprises, in uncontrolled conditions. If, for determination of the arm's length price, the assessee had applied more than one of the permissible methods, as recognized under Section 92-C (1), then qua each of the transactions, to determine the arm's length price, the TPO is required to give reasons as to why one of such methods is being preferred over the others. 9. In the case in hand, as observed earlier, for 09 of the 12 international transactions, the order of the TPO is completely silent as to why for determining arm's length price qua them, he has preferred to discard the CUP method, when the same had been applied by the assessee. For the remaining 03 international transactions also, the reasons so given are found by us to be vague and non-specific. 10. In the light of the observations made above, the TPO was required to give reasons for discarding the CUP method qua each of the transactions as all the 12 international transactions entered into by the appellant were distinct. The order of the TPO, having been found to be lacking as above, we find no fault with the order of the Tribunal remitting the matter to the TPO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. 11. So far as the second question of law is concerned, in view of the fact that while opining on question no. The order of the TPO, having been found to be lacking as above, we find no fault with the order of the Tribunal remitting the matter to the TPO for fresh assessment in accordance with law. 11. So far as the second question of law is concerned, in view of the fact that while opining on question no. 1, we have upheld the order of the Tribunal remitting the matter to the TPO to determine the arm's length price after considering, in accordance with law, whether to apply the CUP method or otherwise, qua each of the international transactions entered into by the appellant, we feel that at this stage, no opinion on the 2nd question needs to be returned. However, after the passing of the fresh assessment order by the TPO, if the appellant is still aggrieved with the findings of the Tribunal qua this question, the appellant would be at liberty to raise this issue in the proceedings, which may ensue after the passing of the a fore referred fresh assessment order. The second question also shall be deemed to have been decided in the fresh order. 12 .Question no. 3 is not pressed by learned counsel for the appellant-assessee. 13. Question no. 4 pertains to non-allowance of the claim by the appellant with regard to depreciation on moulds and question no. 5 to non-allowance of the claim of the appellant with regard to sales tool expenses. Qua them, the Tribunal has opined that the TPO reduced the rate of depreciation as also disallowed sales tool expenses by following the view taken by him in the preceding years. It was further observed that neither of the parties could point out the fate of such views in appeals, if any. Therefore, while setting aside the order impugned before it, the Tribunal remitted these matters back to the TPO. Learned counsel for the appellant informs us that the views taken by the TPO in the preceding years, qua both the issues raised in questions no.4 and 5, were reversed in appeal. If that is so, the opinion of the Tribunal on these issues to remand the matter back to the TPO also need not be interfered by us. 14. In view of the above, the aa No costs.