The DCIT, Central Circle 6(1), Air India Building, 19th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent IT(TP)A No. 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 201112) The DCIT, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs. Ness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Assessee by : S/Shri M.P.Lohia /Nikhil Tiwari Revenue by : Shri Debashish Chand Date of hearing : 23/08 /2016 Date of pronouncement : 11/11/2016 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned crossappeals filed by the Revenue and assessee pertaining to A.Y. 201112 are directed against the order of the DCIT, 2 ITA No. 696& 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 201112) Cen. Cir.6(1), (in short the Assessing Officer ) passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the Act) dated 29/12/2015 , which is in conformity with the direction of the Dispute Resolution Pannel2, Mumbai dated 27/11/2015. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are as under: ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS OF APPEAL Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle 6 (I), Mumbai ['Learned AO'], under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('Act') (' Assessment order'), in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel 2 ('Hon'ble DRP'), Mumbai, on the following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO, based on the directions of the Hon'ble DRP has: General Ground I. erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs 65,05,53,290 against Rs 38,75,66,510 as computed by the Appellant in its return of income; Transfer Pricing Grounds 2. erred in making a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 26,29,86,783 to the total income of the Appellant on the premise that the international transactions entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprises (' AE') were not at arm's length; Reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer 3. erred in referring the Appellant's case to the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') under Section 92CA(1) of the act, without satisfying the conditions specified therein; Rejection of economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant and using single year data 4. erred in rejecting the transfer pricing analysis undertaken by the Appellant under Section 92C of the Act using 3 year weighted average data of comparables and determining the arm's length margin/ price using 3 ITA No. 696& 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 201112) data only for financial year ('FY') 201011, which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements; Selection/Rejection of comparables 5. erred in applying certain rejection criteria/ filters, in an arbitrary, subjective and erroneous manner for the purpose of selection of comparable companies; 6. erred in rejecting certain comparables selected by the Appellant disregarding the fact that the said comparables satisfy all the filters applied by the learned TPO; 7. erred in introducing certain additional comparables, without appreciating the fact that these comparables fail to meet all the comparability criteria; Appellant's comparable company rejected by the learned TPO/Hon'ble DRP 8. erred in rejecting Maveric Systems Limited and Thinksoft Global Services Limited as comparable companies ground