Court held that no  evidence placed by the assessee either before the Dispute Resolution Panel or before the Tribunal, disputing the factual position. The admitted fact was that the assessee had been using the mark ever since 1993. R, Singapore, a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee, was established only in 2005 and the agreement to pay trade mark or licence fee was in the year 2006. The conclusion arrived at by the Transfer Pricing Officer as confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel was based on records, which were available before it and the assessee failed to establish its case not only before the Transfer Pricing Officer, but also before the Dispute Resolution Panel by placing records. Therefore, there was absolutely no error in the manner in which the decision was taken by the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Dispute Resolution Panel. There was absolutely no justification on the part of the assessee to seek for a remand to the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment on the issue. As regard to the corporate guarantee and bank guarantee the Transfer Pricing Officer had compared the nature of documentation executed by the assessee in favour of its associated enterprise to come to the factual conclusion that it was a financial service. This finding of fact had not been interfered with by the Dispute Resolution Panel, but the Dispute Resolution Panel was of the view that the same treatment, which was given in the previous assessment year should be extended for the assessment year under consideration also and there was no reason given by the Transfer Pricing Officer for taking a divergent view. The finding that the very same transaction for the previous assessment year was subject matter of a transfer pricing adjustment, had not been disputed by the Tribunal rather had not even dealt with by the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Tribunal was utterly perverse. The Tribunal committed an error in deleting the additions made against the corporate and the bank guarantee and the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel was correct. (AY.2009-10)