E City Tower, 2,95/1 & 95/2, Circle 2 (1) (1), Electronic City Phase 1 Bangalore. (West), Bangalore 560 100. PAN: AAACL3330M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 12.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2018 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the assessment order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the AO for Assessment Year 201314 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of IT Act, 1961 as per the directions of DRP. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. "The grounds mentioned herein are without prejudice to one another. 1. That the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore (the "learned Assessing Officer" or the "learned AO") pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (`the learned Panel' or 'the learned DRP'), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. IT(TP)A No. 2460/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 20 Transfer Pricing Related 2. That the learned AO and the learned DRP erred in upholding the rejection by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("the learned TPO") of the analysis undertaken by the Appellant in its Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation, and thereby erred in not appreciating that the Appellant had prepared the TP documentation is bona fide and in good faith. 3. The learned AO and the learned DRP erred in law and on facts in disregarding application of multiple year/ prior year data as used by the Appellant in the TP documentation and holding that only current year (i.e., Financial Year 201213) data for comparable companies should be used. 4. The learned AO and the learned DRP erred in law and on facts in upholding the use of data which was not contemporaneous and which was not available in the public domain at the time the TP documentation was prepared by the Appellant. 5. The learned AO and the learned DRP erred on facts and in law in upholding the acts of the learned TPO: (a)in rejecting the comparability analysis of the Appellant in the TP documentation and in submissions provided during the assessment proceedings, and confirming the comparability analysis as adopted by the learned TPO in the transfer pricing order, which is based on inappropriate filters and application of inconsistent comparability criteria. (b)in conducting a fresh benchmarking analysis using non contemporaneous data and substituting the Appellant's analysis with fresh benchmarking analysis based on his own conjectures/ assumptions and application of new filters. 6. That the learned AO and the learned DRP erred in law and on facts in upholding the actions of the TPO in the use of information under section 133(6) of the Act, tantamounting to choosing secret comparable companies whose information was not available in the public domain while undertaking the TP documentation for the referred financial year. Comparable Specific Grounds for the Software Development Segment 7. The learned AO and the learned DRP have erred in law and on facts in upholding the actions of the TPO by including C GV A K Software & Exports Ltd. as a comparable to the Appellant on the ground that it is functionally comparable, whereas this company should have been excluded on the grounds that it is functionally dissimilar to the Appellant, segmental data not being available in the public domain, it has significant R&D expenditure and has extraordinary events during the referred financial year. IT(TP)A No. 2460/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 20 8. The learned AO and the learned DRP have erred in law and on facts in upholding the a