Tribunal held that if  during the course of proceedings, another international transaction, whether reported or unreported, comes to the notice of the Transfer Pricing Officer, he is competent to directly proceed with the determination of its arm’s length price without going through the process of the Assessing Officer first seeking approval from the Principal Commissioner or making a reference to him. The caveat is that the power of the Transfer Pricing Officer under sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends to international transactions and not to specified domestic transactions. In other words, if a specified domestic transaction comes to the notice of the Transfer Pricing Officer during the course of proceedings before him, for which either no reference was made by the Assessing Officer or was not reported, then he is not entitled to determine the arm’s length price of such a specified domestic transaction directly. Once a reference is made to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the arm’s length price of a transaction (international or specific domestic transaction), he is bound to do so. Such a distinction between the two becomes significant only when the Transfer Pricing Officer assumes jurisdiction in terms of sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of section 92CA in the sense that he can proceed only with an international transaction and not with a specified domestic transaction under the later two sub-sections. (AY.2013-14)