Assessee-company was engaged in business of rendering software development services (SWD services) and Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) to its Associated Enterprise (AE). Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) selected a comparable company which is functional dissimilarity, employee cost filter and 75 per cent revenue from software development service of this comparable company were not discussed by TPO with facts and figures. Mater remanded. Company engaged in product engineering and software development, and it owned inventories etc. and that its segmental data was also not available, cannot be held to be comparable. Matter remanded. Comparable company was a giant in field of SWD services and had brand value and huge turnover should be excluded from the list of comparable. Company having Company was engaged in diverse activities and there was no segment details available and also this company held IPR indicating that it was not a pure SWD service company but was also in SWD products was to be excluded from list of comparables.  Company engaged in diverse activities including R & D activities and which had also gone through extraordinary events during year cannot be held to be comparable.

Assessee contended that this company was engaged in diverse activities  Company having extraordinary events from annual report  cannot beheld to be comparable. Where the segments details are not available, matter remanded. (AY. 2011-12)