The Dy. C.I.T. TP 2(2) Pune. Respondent Appellant by : S/Shri M.P. Lohia, Rajendra Agiwal & Hemen Chandariya Respondent by : Smt. Vidya Bajpai Date of Hearing : 07072022 Date of Pronouncement : 12072022 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY This Appeal emanates from the findings of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred to as 'DRP' for short) dated 19022021 for A.Y. 201617 as per the following grounds of appeal. "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ventura (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under section 253(1)( d) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), against the order dated 26 March 2021 issued by the Additional/ Joint! Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Incometax Officer, National eAssessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'learned AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s. Section 144C(13) of the Act in pursuance of the directions dated 19 February 2021 issued by the Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel 3 (WZ), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'Hon'ble DRP') and the order passed by learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') dated 31 October 2019, on the following grounds: On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned TPO, learned AO and Hon'ble DRP have erred as under: 1. Inappropriate confirmation of transfer pricing adjustment of INR 7,90,08,000 in relation to the international transaction pertaining to provision of Information Technology ('IT') services to Associated Enterprises (AEs) Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by confirming transfer pricing adjustment of INR 7,90,08,000 by not considering/accepting the analysis undertaken by the Appellant to determine arm's length price for its international transaction pertaining to provision of IT services for A Y 201617. 2 ITA No. 214/PUN/2021 Ventura (India) P. Ltd. A.Y. 201617 2. Nonconsideration of comparability analysis as documented in the transfer pricing study report Erred in law on facts and in circumstances of the case by not considering the data provided in the transfer pricing study report for benchmarking analysis in relation to international transaction of provision of IT services. 3. Modification of turnover criteria applied by the Appellant , Erred in law on facts and in circumstances of the case by not considering the turnover filter applied in case of provision of IT services by the Appellant of INR I crore to TNR 600 crores (i.e. rejecting companies having turnover lesser than INR I crore and higher than INR 600 crores) as a comparable selection criteria and applying turnover criteria of rejecting companies having turnover less than INR 11.50 crores and more than INR 1,150.15 crores (which is selecting companies within 10 times higher or 10 times lower range). 4. Application of certain inappropriate qualitative filters Erred in law on facts and in circumstances of the case in law by selecting following inappropriate filters and applying certain filters on selective basis: 1. Rejection of companies with less than 75% earnings from exports as against 25% earnings from export filter applied by the Appellant; Rejection of companies with different accounting year; 2. Rejection of companies with different accounting year; 3. Rejection of companies with forex spending greater than 75% of operating cost; 4. Rejection of companies h