Held that   the assessee’s turnover was less than two hundred crore rupees. The companies TM, IB, SPI and ES had turnover exceeding two hundred crore rupees. High turnover companies having turnover more than two hundred crore rupees could not be considered as comparables even if they were otherwise comparable. The application of the turnover filter was justified on the basis of the classification of companies as per the report of Dun and Bradstreet. Those four comparables were to be excluded.  That the three companies SB, AC and HC were not considered as comparables by the Transfer Pricing Officer as they were persistent loss-making companies. As per the functional results provided by the assessee, SB had shown profits in one year, and AC and HC had shown profits continuously. However, the assessee had not raised any specific objection before the lower authorities. The issue was thus remitted back to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel for fresh consideration for decision as per law. The assessee was given liberty to file necessary documents to substantiate its case.  That with respect to the transfer pricing adjustment on notional interest on outstanding trade receivables, the Transfer Pricing Officer had himself allowed a credit period of ninety days, and all invoices had been received within that period. The issue was remanded to the Transfer Pricing Officer to recompute the adjustment considering an interest rate being six months LIBOR plus three hundred and fifty basis points instead of the mark-up of four hundred and fifty basis points applied by the Transfer Pricing Officer. This adjustment was to be made only if the invoices raised by the assessee were not collected within the credit period of ninety days.(AY. 2016-17)