India Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, Building Tax, Circle1(1), Gurgaon 10B, DLF Cyber City, DLF PhaseII, Gurgaon PAN : AACCC3453C (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA No. 6683/Del/2015 Assessment year: 201112 CEB India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income known as Corporate Executive Tax, Circle1(1), Gurgaon th Board India Pvt. Ltd.) 6 Floor, Building 10B, DLF Cyber City, DLF PhaseII, Gurgaon. PAN : AACCC3453C (Appellant) (Respondent) 2 ITA Nos. 6328/Del/2012; 1088/Del/2014; 963/Del/2015 & 6683/Del/2015 AY: 200809, 200910, 201011 & 201115 Assessee by Sh. S.P. Singh, AR; Sh. Manoneet Dalal, Adv.; Sh. Yishu Goel, Adv.; & Ms. Somya Seth, CA Respondent by Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 25.01.2017 Date of pronouncement 17.03.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These four appeals of the assessee are directed against separate orders of the Assessing Officer under Section 144C/143(3) of the Incometax Act, 1961. All these four appeals are in respect of same assessee and the grounds raised in appeals are almost similar and thus same are heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order for convenience. ITA No. 6328/Del/2012 for AY: 200809 2. First we take up ITA No. 6328/Del/2012 for AY: 200809 for adjudication. Grounds raised in the appeal are reproduced as under: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ("AO") is bad in law and void abinitio. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reference made by the learned Assessing Officer suffers from jurisdictional error as the learned Assessing Officer did not record any reasons in the draft assessment order based on which he reached the conclusion that it was "expedient and necessary" to refer the matter to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") for computation of the arm's length price, as is required under section 92CA(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). 3 ITA Nos. 6328/Del/2012; 1088/Del/2014; 963/Del/2015 & 6683/Del/2015 AY: 200809, 200910, 201011 & 201115 3. The on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.1,34,72,719/ to the returned income of the appellant by recomputing the arm's length price of the international transactions under Section 92 of the Act. 4. The learned AO/Ld. TPO/Ld. DRP erred on facts and in law in the assessment of the arm's length price of the assessee's international transactions with associated enterprises in the following manner 4.1 Using the power conferred under Section 133(6) of the Act for collecting information that was not available to the Assessing in the public domain and using the information so collected for the purpose of selection of comparable companies. The said action is in complete violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice as (a) information which was not available with the assessee has been used; and (b) the Assessee was not given any opportunity to crossexamine the companies whose information has been used by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer. 4.2 Rejecting, based on his subjective grounds and presumptions, the comparability analysis conducted by the Assessee for determining the arm's length price and conducting a