Held that Revenue has adduced no material to prove the existence of any arrangement, understanding or action in concert between the assessee and its AEs for incurring the AMP expenses on behalf of the AEs; the impugned TP adjustment made on account of AMP expenses incurred by the assessee is not sustainable. For benchmarking under the RPM, the functional attribute is a primary factor rather than the similarity of the products and therefore, Satyatej Commercial Co  Ltd. cannot be excluded as a comparable on the basis that it is dealing in different products as compared to the assessee; purchases in foreign currency have no impact on the gross sales margin, which are compared under RPM. Since the product profile of Hand Innovation Inc  is similar to that of  Smith & Nephew, Inc  which has been excluded by the TPO from the list of comparables, Hand Innovation Inc    is also to be excluded for benchmarking the international transaction of receipt of indenting commission. Since RG Medical has a similar product line to that of Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products Inc (CSZ) and both companies are operating in the same/similar territories, and the TPO has excluded CSZ from the list of comparables, RG is also to be excluded for benchmarking the international transaction of receipt of indenting commission. Held that the Assessee having filed the evidence for services received by it and the details of reimbursement made by it to the AEs for such expenses, and the TPO having neither undertaken any benchmarking analysis nor searched for any comparable transaction, the value of the international transaction of reimbursement of expenses could not be treated as Nil. (AY. 2010-11)