Plot No. 2121, Sector : 135, New Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida 201304 PAN : AAACX0385L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. Sh. Akshay Uppal, C.A. Ms. Shailey Gupta, C.A. Department by: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR Date of Hearing 30/06/2020 stay petitions were heard on 17 July 2020 Date of pronouncement 28/09/2020 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.: 1. ITA No. 741 (Del) of 2017 is filed for assessment year 201213, ITA. No. 3992 (Del) of 2017 is filed for assessment year 201314 and ITA. No. 5745 (Del) of 2018 is filed for Assessment year 201415 by M/s. Steria (India) Limited, (The Assessee/ Appellant). As some common issues are involved, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together, and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. Stay petitions were also heard on 17 July 2020, which are also disposed of by this order for all these years. 2. ITA No. 741/Del/2017 for AY 201213 is filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C of The Income Tax Act, 1961[ The Act] dated 5/12/2016 passed by The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 8, New Delhi (The Learned Assessing Officer/ AO ) wherein the returned income of ₹ 1,132,764,007 370 filed by the assessee on 29/11/2012 is assessed at ₹ 1,515,053,700/. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. "1. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in completing assessment under section 144C read with section 143(3) of the Incometax Act ("the Act") at an income of Rs. 151,50,53,700 as against the returned income of Rs. 113,27,64,370 under normal provisions of the Act. Transfer Pricing issue: 2. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in making an adjustment of Rs. 11,70,02,000 to the arm‟s length price of the „international transaction‟ of provision of IT enabled services on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer („TPO‟). 2.1 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant being a routine back office support service provider cannot be compared with companies engaged in provision of Knowledge Process Outsourcing („KPO‟) Services for the purpose of benchmarking analysis. 2.2 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering Acropetal Technologies Ltd. (Seg.) as comparable for the purpose of bench marking without appreciating that the company is not functionally comparable to the appellant. 2.3 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering following companies in the final set of comparable for the purpose of bench marking analysis not appreciating that these companies are not functionally comparable to the appellant in terms of Rule 10B(2): a. Eclerx Services Ltd. b. Infosys BPO Ltd. c. TCS EServe Ltd. d. Informed Technologies Limited e. BNR Udyog Ltd. (Seg.) Page 2 of 95 2.4 That the DRP/TPO erred on facts and in law in considering following companies in the final set of comparable companies without appreciating that companies with such high turnover does not satisfy the test of comparability laid down under Rule 10B(2) Of the Income T&X Rules, 1962, for being operating in different market conditio