Held that IB provided services in various areas of sourcing and procurement, customer services, finance and accounting legal process outsourcing, sales and fulfilment, analytics, business platforms, business transformation services, human resource outsourcing, and technology solution optimisation. It also provided services to a wide variety of sectors. The annual report of that company stated that it provided services different from routine back-office services. IB was thus not functionally comparable to the assessee and was to be excluded. Held that ES was involved in high-end knowledge process outsourcing services whereas the assessee was providing information technology enabled services by rendering remote data processing in the field of reinsurance. The functions performed by ES were not similar to that of the assessee even though the assessee carried out certain services on contract basis. ES was thus to be excluded from the list of comparables. That the assessee submitted that SB and AS did not incur continuous losses in the three preceding years. The matter was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer/the Transfer Pricing Officer to consider the financials of these companies, given the position that if a company was making profit in any one of the three immediately preceding years, it should be considered as a comparable.Held that the Transfer Pricing Officer is directed to follow the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel in letter and spirit to include the comparable in the final list.That deferred receivables would constitute an independent international transaction required to be benchmarked independently. Once this was the case, the transaction would have to be looked at by applying commercial principles with regard to international transactions. Accordingly, interest rate in terms of the London Inter Bank Offered Rate plus a mark-up of two hundred basis points would have to be considered. The matter is remitted back to the file of the Transfer Pricing Officer.(AY.2016-17)