Pvt. Ltd, Circle4, BlockA, 3rd Floor, SP Infocity, Gurgaon 243 Udyog Vihar PhaseI, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri GC Srivastava, Sr. Adv Revenue by: Ms. Vat Sava Jaha, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/12/2017 Date of pronouncement 19/03/2018 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ACIT, Circle4(1), Gurgaon (the ld AO) made u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.12.2016 pursuant to the direction of the ld Dispute Resolution PanelI, New Delhi (the ld DRP) issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 23.08.2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer ("AO") has erred in passing the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Incometax Act, 1961 ("the Act") after considering the adjustments proposed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") in his order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP"). Page | 1 Sun Life India Services Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 468/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 201213) Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. Grounds relating to Transfer Pricing Matters: On facts and circumstances of the case, an in law: Ground No. 1 The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred in making an adjustment of INR 30,690,359 to the total income of the Appellant in respect of international transactions pertaining to provision of back office support services and advisory support services by the Appellant to its associated enterprises ("AEs") (hereinafter referred to as "impugned transactions"). Ground No. 2 The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred in not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Incometax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"), and modifying the same for the determination of the Arm's Length Price ("ALP") of the impugned transactions to hold that the same are not at arm's length. Ground No. 3 The learned AO / TPO / DRP have erred in: (a) Not accepting the use of multiple year data, as adopted by the Appellant in TP documentation; and Page | 2 Sun Life India Services Centre Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 468/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 201213) (b) Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year ("FY") 201112 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the Indian TP documentation requirements. Ground No. 4 The learned TPO / AO / DRP have erred, in rejecting certain comparable companies selected by the Appellant by applying inappropriate comparability criteria such as: a. Turnover less than INR 1 crore; b. Different accounting year; c. Employee cost less than 25 percent of total cost; and d. Export turnover less than 75 percent of operating revenues. Ground No. 5 The learned TPO/ AO/ DRP have erred in selecting certain companies (which are earning supernormal profits) as comparable to the Appellant to benchmark the impugned transactions. The learned TPO/ AO/ DRP have erred in wrongly rejecting certain companies from and icluding certain companies to the set of final comparables for the impugned transactions on an adhoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparable for benchmarking the impugned transactions. Ground No. 7