Held that  the assessee had computed the profit level indicator at 11.35 per cent. which the Transfer Pricing Officer rejected and computed at 8.93 per cent. including in the gross revenue the sale of software which was not an international transaction at all as these transactions were with independent parties, not associated enterprises. The Department could not show what was the incomplete information in such annual accounts. It was also not denied that it was functionally comparable. There was no justification in the Transfer Pricing Officer excluding this company on the ground that its operations were predominantly in India because there were international transactions in case of the assessee with its associated enterprises and that export oriented companies operating in similar line of business would alone be good comparable. Accordingly, as the company was functionally comparable, it was to be included in comparable analysis. (AY.2012-13)