Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Epam Systems India Private ... vs Dcit, Circle 8 (1), Hyderabad on 26 November, 2025 1 ITA.Nos.83 and 498/Hyd./2022 आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, है दराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.83 & 498/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 20172018 & 20182019 EPAM Systems India The DCIT & The ACIT, Private Limited, vs. Circle8(1), Hyderabad 500 081 Hyderabad. PAN AAACW2012R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा रती ारा /Assessee by: CA Shreyas Sardesai राज व ारा /Revenue by: MS U Mini Chandran, CITDR सु न वाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 24.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26.11.2025 आदे श/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the Final Assessment Orders dated 28.01.2022 and 30.07.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 2 ITA.Nos.83 and 498/Hyd./2022 1961, for the assessment years 20172018 and 20182019, respectively. ITA.No.83/Hyd./2022 A.Y. 20172018 : 2. The has raised the following grounds of appeal : "The Appellant objects to the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 28 January 2022 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 1448 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds 1:0 Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 16,86,23,336/ to the international transaction relating to Software development segment 1:1 The learned Assessing Officer ("AO")/ Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO")/ Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") has erred in making an upward adjustment of INR 16,86,23,336/ to the total income of the Appellant by holding that the international transaction relating to the Software development services entered into by the Appellant with its Associated Enterprise ("AE") was not at arm's length. 1:2 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in applying the following filters: 1. Data availability filter 2. Turnover filter 3. Persistent loss making filter 4. RPT filter 1:3 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in considering the following companies as comparable to the Appellate, despite the same not being comparable to that of the Appellate due to various factors such as functional comparability, research & development activities, presence of intangibles, advertisement and brand expenses, inadequate financial information, use of unreliable segment financials, extraordinary events / business restructuring, abnormal year, judicial precedents etc. 1. XSCAD India Private Limited 2. Exilant Technologies Private Limited 3. Larsen & Tourbo Infotech Limited 3 ITA.Nos.83 and 498/Hyd./2022 4. Nihilent Technologies Limited 5. Tata Elxsi Limited 6. InfoBeans Technologies Limited 7. Wipro Limited 8. Persistent Systems Limited 9. Aptus Software Labs Private Limited 10. Cygnet Infotech Private Limited 11. Infosys Limited 12. Pagetraffic WebTech Private Limited 13. Gislen Software Private Limited 14. Cybage Software Private Limited 15. Mindtree Limited 16. EInfochips Limited 17. Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. 1:4 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in law and in facts in not including the following comparable companies requested for inclusion by the Appellate: TP Study comparable: 1. Harbinger Systems Private Limited 2. Sasken Technologies Limited 3. EZest Solutions Limited 4. SK Miles Software Services Limited 1:5 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred in appreciating the fact that the Appellate has maintained transfer pricing study report on a contemporaneous basis. Without prejudice to the appellant's contention that benchmarking analysis as per transfer pricing document needs to be considered: 1:6 The learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred both in law and facts, in applying inappropriate filters. 1:7 The learned AO/TPO has erred in considering provision for bad and doubtful debts as nonoperating in nature while computing the operating margins of comparable companies.