Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that  TPO  grossly erred in applying notional interest @11% (i.e. cost of procurement of funds by assessee @5% + 600 basis points) whereas cost of procurement of similar funds from third part was LIBOR+ 600 basis points, which came at 7.20%. On facts the  revenue had accepted interest of 8% charged on same loan to be at arm’s length in earlier as well as succeeding transfer pricing assessments, there was no cogent reason to adopt a contrary view in relevant year.. The Tribunal also held that TPO was failed to take into account profile of consumers, preference amongst consumers and purchasing power. CUP could not be applied without adjustments on account of differences in market and economic conditions of countries in which products had been sold to independent third parties.  Considering the fact that the assessee had sold over 250 different products to AEs, but TPO selectively shortlisted only 56 products to conduct benchmarking analysis under CUP Method. CUP requires high degree of comparability and where product mix, material and composition were not identical, application of CUP failed. Tribunal held that such methodology was devoid of any merit, as in FMCG sector pricing of product, as per unit/quantity was never done proportionately.( AY.2011-12, 2012-13 )