Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ......Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Sharath Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2020 ORDER PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed an appeal against the order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act1961 ('the Act') dt.17.10.2019 passed in 2 IT(TP)A No.2355/Bang/2019 pursuance to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Act dt.27.09.2019. 2. The assessee has Raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. " The assessment order passed by the LearnedJoint Commissioner of Incometax, Special Range 3 ("AO"), under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order of the LearnedTransfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") issued under section 92CA of the Act and the directions of the HonourableDispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") issued under section 144C(5) of the Act for the Assessment Year ("AY") 201516, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited ("GSSPL" or the "Appellant"), are not in accordance with the law, made in violation of the principles of equity and natural justice and are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Adjustment under section 92CA of the Act 2.1 Rejection of the transfer pricing documentation of the Appellant 2.1.1 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO/TPO have erred in law and on facts by rejecting the Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation which has been prepared by the Appellant with respect to Information Technology ("IT")&Information technology enabled service ("ITES") segment, in the manner contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Incometax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"). 2.1.2 The Honorable DRP and the Learned AO/TPO have erred in law in rejecting the TP Study of the Assessee as "not reliable or correct", under Section 92C(3) of the Act, merely because the learned TPO did not agree with the positions and filters adopted by the Assessee in its TP Study and adopted certain additional filters / modified filters in selecting the comparable companies by using non contemporaneous data of the said companies. Rejection of the comparability analysis undertaken by the Assessee 2.1.3 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law in confirming the actions of learned TPO in conducting a fresh search for comparable companies and by rejecting the search process carried out by the Assessee, without giving justifiable reasons. The Honorable DRP and learned TPO / AO failed to appreciate that the TPO can proceed to determine the ALP for the international transactions of the Assessee on its own only upon satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in Section 92C(3) of the Act, which were not satisfied in the impugned case. Further, the learned TPO did not consider the requirement of Rule 10D(4) of the Rules when undertaking a fresh search for comparable companies. 2.1.4 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO/TPO have erred in not providing the Assessee an opportunity of undertaking a fresh search for comparable companies at the time of TP assessment, considering the updated data available in public domain at the time of TP assessment which was used by the learned TPO in undertaking the fresh search. 3 IT(TP)A No.2355/Bang/2019 2.2 Nonavailability of data for FY 201415 The Honorable DRP and learned TPO/ AO have erred in selecting the companies only if the data pertaining to FY 201415 is available in the public databases. 2.3 Companies with different FY ending The Honorable DRP and lea