Held, that admittedly there was no agreement between the assessee and its associated enterprise to incur the expenses in question. The Transfer Pricing Officer had noted that the assessee had not proved with proper documentation and evidence that services were actually rendered. The reimbursement of expenses was guided by the profitability of the associated enterprise and was not based on services rendered by the associated enterprise to the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer concluded that though arm’s length price could not be determined at “nil”, such expenditure could be allowed only after the assessee proved conclusively that there was actual rendition of services by the associated enterprise. The assessee had not been able to prove the actual rendering of services and expenditure in respect of the assessee’s business by its overseas associated enterprise either by producing the necessary agreement in respect of rendering of services or in the form of any other communication which could convincingly or conclusively establish such rendering of services or incurring expenditure, the Transfer Pricing Officer was justified in determining the arm’s length price at “nil”. There was no infirmity in the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer or the Dispute Resolution Panel.(AY. 2015-16)