Dismissing the appeal of the asssessee the Court held that; the contention of the assessee that while admitting the underutilization of the capacity of the assessee in this particular year, the Tribunal could not have computed the operating margins without proportionately reducing the quantum of depreciation, only finding its justification in the case of two comparables, was not tenable and the findings of the Tribunal could not be held to be perverse. The Tribunal was justified in its conclusion arrived at on the premise that the depreciation on the fixed assets need not be directly proportional to the utilization of plant and machinery or production capacity. The premise of the Tribunal’s findings is not necessarily contrary to the finding in the case of the assessee that in this particular year, there was underutilization of capacity in the case of the assessee. The claim of depreciation did not depend merely upon the extent of wear and tear of the plant and machinery. The findings or the premise taken by the Dispute Resolution Panel in the subsequent year did not render the findings in the previous years per se illegal or unsustainable. In the determination of the arm’s length price of an international transactions, the entire exercise is in the realm of a fact finding exercise and unless on the face of it, the findings of the Tribunal or the authorities below are found to be perverse and it can be said that the view taken by them is wholly unsustainable according to the legal provisions, no substantial question of law would arise in the matter.( AY.2010-11)