Held that in his remand report in reply to the additional evidence filed by the assessee, the Transfer Pricing Officer agreed with the fact that the assessee had received reimbursement of expenses from the associated enterprise but despite correctly noting the factual position, the Transfer Pricing Officer emphasised upon satisfaction of need, benefit and evidence test. The Dispute Resolution Panel also did not correctly appreciate the transaction between the assessee and its associated enterprise. It was not the case of the Revenue that the mark-up charged by the assessee for the services rendered to the associated enterprise under the agreement was not at arm’s length. The Revenue had only doubted the genuineness of the reimbursement of expenses made by the assessee to its associated enterprise. However, the transaction was not reimbursement of expenses by the assessee to its associated enterprise but reimbursement of expenses by the associated enterprise to the assessee. In view thereof, the adjustment made by the Transfer Pricing Officer and upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel in respect of international transactions of reimbursement of the seafarers expenses was based on incorrect appreciation of facts. The Transfer Pricing Officer was to delete the adjustment. (AY. 2016-17)