Held that the Transfer Pricing Officer had based his benchmarking of the assessee’s international transactions entirely upon his own order for the assessment year 2005-06. The facts and circumstances of the case at hand were identical to the facts of the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06 and since the assessee had not undergone any change in the business model, the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 in the assessee’s favour was to be followed. In any case, the assessee had explained all the facts by its letter dated September 22, 2009 so that the findings returned by the Transfer Pricing Officer that no evidence had been brought on record by the assessee to prove the rendition of services, was not tenable. The Transfer Pricing Officer had erred in treating the value of the transaction as nil by ignoring the evidence brought on record by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the facts and the law applicable thereto by examining the entire evidence on record and deleted the addition. There was no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).).(AY.2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09)