Held that there was no error in the decision of the Tribunal in rejecting the company Infosys BPO as a comparable since it was functionally dissimilar to the assessee as it was largely engaged in software development, assuming all risks leading to higher profits, which was not in the case of the assessee.  That the other comparable rightly rejected by the Tribunal was the company A which had high on-site development expenses whereas the assessee was engaged only in offshore activities and therefore, the two were not comparable on functional level. The Transfer Pricing Officer had failed to analyse as to how the engineering design services of A could be compared with low end information technology enabled services of the assessee and had not discussed its segmental details.  That the high end knowledge process outsourcing services provider could not be compared with the information technology enabled services, which fell under the category of business process outsourcing services provider. The comparable e-Clerx was a leading knowledge process outsourcing company founded in the year 2000, and by the assessment year 2008-09, it had reached an employee strength of about 2000. It focussed on automation and process re-engineering in order to eliminate wasteful steps, and to automate repetitive ones, so as to minimize the need for human intervention and present their clients costs savings, which exceeded those from simple wage arbitrage, which in turn reduced the need for costly, high skilled resources and gave it ability to scale solutions quickly, both for existing clients and also for new ones. In contrast, the assessee had employed fresh young graduates, engaged in simply punching in data.  That the findings as regards rejection of the three comparables being findings of fact and there being no proposed question alleging any perversity, no substantial question of law arose.