Systems India Pvt. Ltd., DLF Infinity TowerA, 2nd Floor, DLF Cyber City PhaseII, Gurgaon PAN : AABCC3425B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. G.C. Srivastava & Daksh Bhardwaj, Advocates Respondent by Sh. T.M. Shiva Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 02.11.2016 Date of pronouncement 20.01.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23/10/2012 passed by the Assessing officer (AO) , in compliance to the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP) , under section 143 (3) read with section 144C of the Income tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), in respect of assessment year 200809 raising following grounds: "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"). 2 ITA No. 6334/Del/2012 AY: 200809 Each of the ground is referred to separately, which may kindly be considered independent of each other. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. the AO/TPO has erred in making an addition of INR 49,981,078 to the total income of the Appellant by rejecting the transfer pricing ("TP") analysis undertaken by the Appellant and making an adjustment under section 92CA (3) of the Act without returning a finding about existence of any of the circumstances specified in clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (3) of section 92C of the Act. 2. the AO/TPO has erred by 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 Appellant's international transactions to hold that the same are not at arm's length. 3. The AO/ TPO has erred in: a) Using data for a single year instead of multiple year data; and (b) Determining the arm's length margins / prices using data pertaining only to financial Year ("FY") 200708 which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the Indian TP documentation requirements. 4 The AO/TPO has erred by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using 'Employee cost greater than 25 percent of total revenue' as a comparability criterion. 5 The AO/TPO has erred by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using Onsite revenues greater than 75 percent of the export revenues' as a comparability criterion. 6. The AO/TPO has erred by exercising powers assigned under section 133(6) of the Act to obtain information which was not available in the public domain and relying upon the same for comparability purposes. 3 ITA No. 6334/Del/2012 AY: 200809 7. The AO/TPO has erred by selecting certain companies (which are earning super normal profits) as comparable to the Appellant. 8. The AO/TPO has erred, by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using Turnover less INR 1 crore' as a comparability criterion. 9. The AO/TPO has erred, by wrongly rejecting certain companies from and adding certain companies to the final set of comparables on an adhoc basis, thereby resorting to cherry picking of comparables. 10. The AO/TPO has erred by passing an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act which contains computational error in the margin of certain comparable companies used in determination of ALP. 11. The AO/TPO has erred by not making appropriate adjustments to account for differences in working capital employed by the Appellant visavis the compar