Globsyn Crystals, Tower1, 6th floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics City, Kolkata700 091. (PAN: AADCA8967A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri Protyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Amal Kamat, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2023 ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Present appeal by the assessee is arising out of order passed by ACIT, Circle11, Kolkata u/s. 144C read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 29.11.2016, pursuant to direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel 2 (in short DRP) u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 22.09.2016, for AY 201213 2. Assessee made an application before the Tribunal to accept the revised grounds of appeal vide its application dated 04.12.2017. The 2 ITA No.204/Kol/2017 Normura Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. AY 201213 revised grounds have been filed to make the original grounds precise. The same are admitted and adjudicated upon. Accordingly, the revised grounds of appeal are reproduced as under: "1. For that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at INR 23,101,704/ as against total income of INR 16,361,520/ computed by the Appellant as per normal provisions of the Act. 2. For that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the Book Profits of the Appellant at INR 1,635,933/ as against Book Loss of INR 5,104,250/ computed by the Appellant as per provisions of section 115JB of the Act. 3. For that the Assessing Officer erred in allowing MAT credit of only INR 2,985,433/ in his final computation of tax as against MAT credit of INR 8,743,892/ claimed by the Appellant in its income tax return. 4. For that the Authorities below erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation prepared by the Appellant and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules') and in making an adjustment of INR 67,40,183/ (subsequently increased to INR 7,211,388 vide revised order effect dated 4 January 2017 passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer) to the international transactions with Associated Enterprises. 5. For that the Transfer Pricing Officer erred In not providing the detailed search process adopted by him for selecting his own set of companies which he considered as comparable to the Appellant and also erred in conducting fresh search and economic analysis. 6. For that the Authorities below erred in rejecting the use of multiple year data despite the Appellant demonstrating the circumstances warranting its use. 7. For that the Authorities below erred in wrongly applying related party transaction ("RPT") filter as a percentage of aggregate of sales and expenditure as against percentage of total sales only and thereby erred in not rejecting following comparables on the RPT filter: (a) Einfochips Limited (b) ASM Technologies Limited Rejection and inclusion of comparable companies 8. For that the Authorities below erred in including Acropetal Technologies Limited in the final set of comparables although the said company is not functionally comparable and fails service income filter applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer himself. 9. For that the Authorities below erred in including Einfochip Limited in the final set of comparables though the said company is not functionally comparable and also fails the RPT filter of 25% on sales. 10. For that the Authorities below erred in including ASM Technologies Limited in the final set of comparables though the said company is not