PAN: AAFCS3649P APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee by : CA Revenue by : Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20062022 Date of Pronouncement : 28072022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee as well as revenue against final assessment order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Circle 6(1)(2), Bangalore for Assessment Year 201011 on following consolidated grounds of appeal. Assessee's appeal: "The grounds mentioned herein by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. Page 2 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 Revised grounds of appeal filed on 26.03.2018 Transfer pricing matters 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("learned DRP") erred in confirming the action of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bangalore ("learned AO")/ learned Additional Commissioner of Incometax (Transfer Pricing) III, Bangalore ("learned TPO") in making an adjustment of INR 49,18,48,634 to the provision of contract software development and related services provided to its associated enterprises. (corresponding to revised ground no. 1 & original ground no. 1) 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DRP / AO / TPO erred in: 2.1 Rejecting the Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained by the Appellant under Section 92D of the Act in good faith and with due diligence; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.1 & original ground no. 2.1) 2.2 Disregarding the application of multipleyear data while computing the profit level indicators ("PLI") of the comparable companies; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.2 & original ground no. 2.2) 2.3 Using data, which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time of preparing the TP documentation; (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.3 & original ground no. 2.3) 2.4 Rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its TP documentation in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Incometax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules") and confirming the comparability analysis as adopted by the learned TPO in the TP Order. Hence, the TPO erred in retaining `ICRA Techno Analytics Ltd. (Seg.)' in its comparability analysis which is functionally dissimilar to the Appellant. (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.4 & original ground no. 2.4) 2.5 Rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its TP documentation in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and confirming Page 3 of 29 IT(TP)A Nos. 561 & 437/Bang/2015 the comparability analysis as adopted by the learned TPO in the TP Order. Hence, the TPO erred in retaining Infosys Ltd' in its comparability analysis which is functionally dissimilar to the Appellant. (corresponding to revise ground no. 2.5 & original ground no. 2.4) 2.6 Rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its TP documentation in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and confirming the comparability analysis as adopted by the learned TPO in the TP Order. Hence, the TPO erred in retaining `Kals Information Systems Limited (Seg.)' in its comparability analysis which is functionally dissimilar to the Appellant. (corresponding to revised ground no. 2.6 & original ground no. 2.4) 2.7 Rejecting the comparability analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its TP documentation in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Rules and confirming the comparability analysis as adopted by the learned TPO in the TP Order. Hence, erred in retaining '