1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Green, New Delhi. NH8, New Delhi110038. PAN: AACB 6600 N ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Vohra Adv. Shri Abhishek Agarwal CA Shri Ramit Katyal CA Respondent by : Shri Peeyush Jain CIT(DR) TP ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M:: These are assessee's appeals against assessment orders dated 31.10.2011 for A.Y. 200708 and dated 19.10.2012 for A.Y. 2008 09.passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) after seeking directions from DRP u/s 144C(13) of the Incometax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Both the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The principal grounds of appeal, common in both the years under consideration, raised by the appellant are as under; others being supplementary and argumentative grounds are not pressed hence dismissed. 2. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 129,356,670/ (A.Y. 200708) & Rs. 17,28,83,745/ (A.Y. 200809) on account of the alleged difference in the arm's length price of the 'international ITA nos. 5420/Del/11 & 6057/Del/2012 2 Hughes Systique India Pvt. Ltd. transaction' of (i) provision of software services, and (ii) marketing support services, on the basis of the order passed under section 92CA(3) read with section 144C(5) of the Act by the Transfer Pricing Officer ("the TPO"). 2.1. That the assessing officer / DRP erred on facts and in law in disregarding the internal benchmarking undertaken by the assessee for determining the arm's length price of the international transactions applying TNMM on the ground that (i) the transactions undertaken with unrelated party at 20.60% of the total revenue, is lower than the quantum of transaction undertaken with associated enterprises, hence, it does not provide a robust measure of comparability, and (ii) internal benchmarking was adopted to gloss over the entity level loss. 2.2. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in evaluating the international transactions applying TNMM at entity level by comparing the net operating profit margin of the assessee with uncontrolled net operating profit margin of comparable uncontrolled enterprises. 3. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in holding the arms length price of the international transactions of payment of market support services fees ('MSF') of Rs. 9,12,80,860/ (A.Y. 200708) and Rs. 7,70,11,732/ (A.Y. 200809) at nil allegedly concluding that no such service has been received by the and therefore there is no rationale for paying this marketing support services fees to the AE. 4. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law restricting depreciation on computer peripherals @ 15% as against 60% claimed by the assessee, without appreciating that UPS could not work without computers and such machines are a part of computer system and not plant and machinery. ITA nos. 5420/Del/11 & 6057/Del/2012 3 Hughes Systique India Pvt. Ltd. 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act. 3. Brief facts about grounds of appeals are : The appellant has challenged before us Transfer Pricing adjustment made by the TPO and sustained by the Dispute Resolution Panel ("DRP") on account of (I) international transaction of provision of software development services; and (II) international transaction of payment of fee for marketing support services to the associated enterprise. (I) Transfer Pricing adjustment in respect of the international transactions of software development services: 3.1. The appellant, Hughes Systique India Pvt. Ltd., is as subsidiary company of Hughes Systique Mauritius Private Limited and is engaged in the business of providing software engineering services in the telecom domain with areas of focus being broadband, satellite communications, wireless, multimedia applications, etc. During the previous year, relevant to assessment years 200708 and 200809 the appellant, in the course of its