Plot No. 251, Sector6, Circle1(1), IMT Manesar, Gurgaon Gurgaon PAN:AACCD0262A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv Revenue by: Shri Amrender Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 07/11/2017 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as ld AO] dated 23.12.2013 for the Assessment Year 200910 under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the income tax act, 1961 (in short The Act) passed in pursuance of direction of the Ld Dispute Resolution Panel 1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. DRP) dated 03/10/2013 against objections on draft assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer on 28/2/2013 wherein the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer) vide order under section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 29/01/2013 were incorporated. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Hon‟ble Dispute resolution Panel has erred in law, facts and circumstances of case by failing to give due consideration to the objections raised by assesse and rejecting almost all objection in pre conceived and mechanical manner without giving any justifiable, logical or cogent reasoning. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) / Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) / Dispute Resolution Panel („DRP‟) has erred in making an addition of Rs. 1533640/ to the total income of the appellant on account of various transfer pricing adjustments and accordingly, brought down returned loss of Rs. 17377228/ to Rs.2040830/. 3. The learned TPO and The learned AO has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by proposing and selecting Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. („Hindustan Syringes‟) as a comparable to the assessee to benchmark the impugned transaction. „Hindustan Svrinaes‟ is not a suitable comparable. This comparable is Degania Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 895/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 200910) having a turnover more than 20 times the turnover of the assessee and producing entirely different products and use entirely different raw material which are not comparable. 4. The learned TPO and Learned AO has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by proposing and selecting Pregna International Ltd. („Pregna‟) as a comparable to the assessee to benchmark the impugned transaction. „Pregna‟ is not a suitable comparable. This proposed comparable („Pregna‟) is producing or dealing in entirely different products like medical implants and electronic Components, which are not comparable with medical disposables (produced by assesse) by any stretch of imagination. In fact Hon‟ble DRP has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by rejecting our objection to proposed comparable. DRP has misconstrued the functional proximity of the products and was not able to appreciate the facts that Medical disposable cannot be compared with electronic products i.e. laparoscope and component. Also medical disposable cannot be compared with medical implants i.e. „Copper T."