Where the assessee had invoked Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) under Article 27 of the India-USA DTAA and transfer pricing adjustments relating to US transactions were resolved through agreement between the competent authorities of India and USA, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the TPO to adopt the same approach for determining ALP in respect of non-US international transactions. The High Court held that MAP is a consensual dispute resolution mechanism confined only to transactions covered by such agreement for elimination of double taxation and cannot substitute statutory determination of arm’s length price under the Act and Rules for transactions not forming part of MAP. Acceptance of a negotiated MAP settlement for US transactions does not bind or govern determination of ALP for transactions with entities situated in other jurisdictions, in absence of any corresponding agreement between competent authorities. Accordingly, ALP for non-MAP transactions must necessarily be determined independently in accordance with S.92C read with Rule 10B and the Tribunal’s direction to extend MAP methodology to non-US transactions was held to be unsustainable. (AY. 2008-09).