Prestige Obelisk, Level 9, Tax, Kasturba Road, Circle 12(3), Bangalore. Bangalore560 001 Appellant Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Cherian K Baby, C. A. Respondent By : Shri Sibichen K Mathew, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 14.6.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 26.8.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the assessment order dt.15.09.2011 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') dt.30.8.2011 for the Assessment Year 200708. 2. The assessee has raised the following concised grounds : 2 IT(TP)A No.1094/Bang/2011 1. " The Assessing Authority has considered expenditure incurred in foreign currency aggregating to Rs.14,15,598/ towards foreign travel (Rs.14,12,493/) and software license fees (Rs.3,105/) which in fact is not attributable to the delivery of software outside India. These expenses were primarily incurred for the purposes of travel of the directors for obtaining orders and for sending people abroad for training etc. These are clearly not incurred for the delivery of software outside India as your appellant did not render any onsite service and hence ought not to have been deducted while computing the export turnover. 2. Even if the view of the DCIT, that these are to be reduced from export turnover, is to be accepted for the sake of argument without conceding it, then this should be deducted from the calculation of Total Turnover also. The Deputy Commissioner has wrongly disallowed the claim of the assessee for a full deduction under Section 10A for all its profits and gains from the software business of the STPI unit at Bangalore by adopting as the denominator, total turnover of the business without deducting the expenditure on delivery of software outside India although export turnover which is the nominator was computed after reducing all these expenses ignoring the parity principle which ought to have been considered based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Tata Elxsi Limited (Karnataka High Court 2011). 3. Total turnover ought to have been determined by adding other turnover if any to the export turnover. Since your appellant has no other turnover, the export turnover should be adopted as the total turnover also. Ground II 4. The Assessing Officer has wrongly adjusted the loss incurred by the non STPI unit of your assessee against the profits earned by the STPI unit in arriving at the amount of deduction allowed u/s 10A although the deduction U/s 10A is to be calculated on the basis of profits and 3 IT(TP)A No.1094/Bang/2011 gains derived by the respective STPI undertaking and not on the basis of profits and gains derived by the company as the benefit travels with the undertaking and is not attached to the assessee. 5. The decision of the Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Yokogawa India Limited (ITA 78/2011) is squarely applicable to us. Ground III 6. The addition of Rs.1,56,60,368/ made as ALP adjustment as suggested by the Transfer Pricing Officer and upheld by the Dispute Resolution Board is to be ordered to be deleted as the TPOs order suffers from the following deficiencies: i) The TPO rejected Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method adopted by the appellant and instead used Transaction Net Margin Method as the most appropriate method for determining arms length price. No adjustments were made by the TPO for the differences in the functions and risks which are not undertaken by your appellant but undertaken by the comparable companies considering the fact that your appellant does not undertake marketing activities and does not complet