Bangalore 560 042. Circle 2 (1) (1), Bangalore. PAN: AABCN3639C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri P.K. Prasad & Shri Umashankar Gautam, Advocate Respondent by : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 27.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2018 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the assessment order passed by the AO on 21.12.2016 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of IT Act as per the directions of DRP for Assessment Year 201213. 2. The revised grounds filed by the assessee are as under. "The grounds mentioned herein by the Appellant are without prejudice to one another. 1. That the order of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1) (1), Bangalore ("Assessing Officer" or "AO") pursuant to the directions of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (learned Panel') to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. [corresponding to ground no. 1] 2. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Transfer Pricing Range 1(1)(2) (learned TPO') and in upholding the adjustment to the IT(TP)A No. 383/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 20 transfer price of the Appellant in respect of Software development services and IT enabled services. [corresponding to ground no. 2] 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/learned Panel erred in upholding the rejection of comparability analysis of the Appellant in the TP documentation and accepting the fresh comparability analysis performed by the learned TPO. [corresponding to ground no.3 (a)] 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/learned Panel erred in disregarding application of multiple year/prior year data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that current year (i.e. Financial Year 201112) data for companies should be used for comparability. [corresponding to ground no. 3(b)] 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/learned Panel erred in upholding the learned TPO's approach of using data as at the time of assessment proceedings, instead of that available as on the date of preparing the TP documentation for comparable companies while determining the arm's length price. [corresponding to ground no. 3(c)] 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO/learned Panel erred in upholding the learned TPO's approach of using the export sales income less than 75% of the sales filter and the employee cost less than 25% of turnover filter for the exclusion of comparables. [corresponding to ground no. 3(d)] 7. The learned AO in pursuance of the order of the learned TPO and the directions of the learned Panel erred on facts and law while including Persistent Systems Limited as a comparable in respect of its software development services segment whereas the same should have been excluded for the reasons of functional dissimilarity. [corresponding to ground no. 3(e)] 8. The learned AO in pursuance of the order of the learned TPO and the directions of the learned Panel erred on facts and law while including Infosys Limited as a comparable in respect of its software development services segment whereas the same should have been excluded for the reasons of functional dissimilarity, huge R&D expenditure, etc. [corresponding to ground no. 3(e)] 9. The learned AO in pursuance of the order of the learned TPO and the directions of the learned Panel erred on facts and law while including Genesys International Limited as a comparable in respect of its software development services segment whereas the same should have b