Semiconductors India P.Ltd.) Bangalore. Information Technology Park Nagawara Village Kasaba Hobli Bengaluru 560 045 PAN : AADCP9454H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CITDR Date of Date of Hearing : 25.02.2020 Pronouncement : 27.04.2020 ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, AM : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the CIT(A), dated 30.01.2017 and 24.10.2017 for the assessment years 20122013 and 2013 2014, respectively. First, we shall take up IT(TP)A No.692/Bang/2017 for assessment year 20122013 for adjudication. IT(TP)A No.692/Bang/2017 : Asst. Year 20122013 : 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: "Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and 2 IT(T)A Nos.692 & 2861/Bang/2017 M/s.NXP India Private Limited. In law, NXP India Private Limited (Successor of NXP Semiconductors India Private Limited) (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle5(1)(1) ("Assessing Officer" or "AO"), dated 30 January 2017 for A Y 201213, under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") pursuant to the directions issued by the Honourable Dispute Resolution Panel ("Hon'ble DRP"), Bangalore dated 01 December 2016 under section 144C(5) of the Act ("the impugned order"), interalia on the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law: General Grounds 1. The impugned order and directions of the Hon'ble DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and wrong interpretation of law and therefore, are bad in law; 2. The learned AO / Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") has erred in assessing the total income at INR 324,935,945 as against the returned income of INR 244,543,220 computed by the Appellant in its return of income for A Y 201213; 3. The learned AO has erred in law and in fact, in determining a sum of INR 40,638,140 as the balance tax demand payable by the Appellant; Transfer Pricing grounds 4. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in, law and facts, by upholding the stand of learned AO/TPO of not accepting the economic analysis undertaken by the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the Act read with the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules"), and conducting a fresh economic analysis for the 3 IT(T)A Nos.692 & 2861/Bang/2017 M/s.NXP India Private Limited. determination of the ALP in connection with the impugned international transaction and holding that the Appellant's international transaction is not at arm's length; 5. The learned AO / TPO erred in making an addition of INR 70,609,072 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price ("ALP") of the provision of software development ("SWD") services transaction entered by the Appellant with its associated enterprise; 6. The learned TPO/AO has erred, in law and in facts, by determining the arm's length margin! price using only Financial Year ("FY") 201112 data which was not available to the Appellant at the time of complying with the transfer pricing documentation requirements and the Hon'ble DRP has erred in upholding the said stand of the learned TPO/AO; 7. The learned AO/ TPO has erred in law and facts by rejecting certain comparable companies considered by the Appellant in the comparability analysis by applying different quantitative and qualitative filters: (a) by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant for having different accounting year (i.e. companies having accounting year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were for a period other than 12 months); (b) by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using export earnings greater than 75% of the sales as a comparability criterion; (c) by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant using employee cost greater than 25% of the total revenues as a