The AO made the transfer pricing adjustments and passed a draft assessment order. The assessee contended before the Dispute Resolution Panel that the comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer were functionally dissimilar and hence should be excluded. The Panel excluded only one comparable  from the list and rejected the objections regarding the exclusion of other comparables. . On appeal the Tribunal accepted the submissions of the assessee that the comparables chosen by the TPO were functionally dissimilar and were to be rejected. On appeals by the revenue the Court held that the Tribunal had given cogent reasons showing the dissimilarities of the comparables selected by the TPO for determination of arm’s length price of the assessee. The Tribunal was justified in excluding the comparables selected by the TPO . For the AY 2013-14, the TPO characterized the assessee as information technology enabled services provider only and rejected its claim as information technology services provider which was in the nature of software development.  The assessee filed an appeal  before the Appellate Tribunal along with an application for additional evidence wherein evidence was also filed indicating that it was engaged in software development which was rejected . On appeal  the Court held that  considering the facts that according to the assessment orders in the preceding AYs, the Transfer Pricing Officer and the Assessing Officer had accepted that the assessee was engaged in information technology services (including software development and information technology enabled services) and that due to paucity of time the assessee could not produce certain evidence before the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal was set aside. The Tribunal was directed to examine whether the assessee was engaged in the activity of software development on consideration of the additional evidence adduced by the assessee.( AY .2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14)