Held that the assessee had maintained primary books of account and documents in respect of its business activity. The international transactions carried out by the assessee with its associated enterprises had also been well documented and supported by the benchmarking done by the assessee under the transactional net margin method. Further, the assessee had made substantial compliances before the Transfer Pricing Officer and furnished all possible information, data and documents. The only lapse was that the assessee failed to furnish the segmental profitability of the associated enterprises and non-associated enterprises transactions which would be explained by the fact that it was practically difficult to maintain these details considering the nature of the assessee’s business. Finally the transactions had been accepted to be at arm’s length. If the Transfer Pricing Officer was not satisfied with the benchmarking of the assessee under the transactional net margin method, nothing prevented him from rejecting the assessee’s benchmarking and proceed to determine the arm’s length price independently by applying any one of the prescribed methods. The blame for failure on the part of the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm’s length price could not be fastened on the assessee. The order deleting the penalty under section 271G called for no interference. (AY. 2012-13)