Held that  although the assessee’s rectification application dealt with only the matter of professional fees, the Commissioner (Appeals) mistook the rectification as one moved also on two other issues relating to employees stock option plan and foreign exchange loss. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on these three issues failing to appreciate the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits. That the assessee had raised many issues such as selection of comparables, erroneous computation of margins of comparable companies, computation of transfer pricing adjustment, corporate guarantee, use of single year data and benefits of +/-5 per cent. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) adjudicated only a single issue concerning the validity of the comparables.  That the fact whether the dividend received by the assessee was covered under section 115BBD and whether any expenditure had been incurred for earning the dividend were required to be verified from the records of the assessee. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had not elaborately dealt with the issue in his order. Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A) for fresh consideration. (AY.2012-13, 2013-14)