J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member - This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO passed the impugned order on 28.2.2014, in pursuance to the order of the DRP-I, New Delhi dt. 19.12.2013. The grounds of appeal are as follows:

"1. The assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I (I), New Delhi [Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO')] pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('Hon'ble DRP') is bad in law.

2. The Hon'ble DRP and the Ld. AO (following the directions of the Hon'ble DRP), erred both on the facts and in law, in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 94,516,662 to the income of the Appellant [out of the total addition of Rs. 122,087,265 as proposed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer-I (I), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. TPO')/ Ld. AO in its draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C] by holding that its international transaction pertaining to provision of non-binding financial advisory and consultancy services do not satisfy the arm's length principle prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').

3. On facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in disregarding the Assessee's use of multiple year/ prior years' data in contravention of the provision of section 92C of the Act read with Rule 10B and Rule 10D(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('Rules').

4. On facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in disregarding the doctrine of impossibility of performance in contravening Section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D(4) of the Rules, which mandate the use of contemporaneous data for the determination of ALP of international transactions.

5. On facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Ld. AO erred in confirming the action of the and Ld.TPO of modifying adding the selection filters applied by the Appellant in its TP documentation and arbitrarily rejecting the comparable companies identified in the TP documentation maintained by the Appellant and the ones identified in the fresh search carried out by the Appellant during the TP assessment proceedings.

6. On facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP and Ld. AO erred in rejecting Cyber Media Research Limited as a comparable company citing the reasons of incomparability, completely ignoring that this company is functionally comparable to the Appellant and disregarding various judicial pronouncements which uphold this company as a comparable in respect of the financial advisory and consultancy services performed by the tested party such as the Appellant.

7. On facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in selection of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Ltd. as a comparable company and by doing so:

7.1 in contravention of the Section 92C(3) of the Act read with Rule 108(2) of the Rules, erred in including this company which is not comparable to the Appellant in terms of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed and ignoring judicial pronouncements in this regard;

7.2 erred in selecting this company having highly volatile margins across past years, thus ignoring judicial pronouncements in this regard including the one in the Appellant's own case for prior assessment years;

7.3 erred in selecting this company with extreme results, in the final comparables' set for benchmarking a low risk captive unit such as the Appellant.

8. Without prejudice to Ground 7, on facts and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. TPO made computational errors in calculating the working capital adjusted margin of Motilal Oswal Investment Advisors Ltd. despite and in contrary to the clear directions given by the Hon'ble DRP.

9. On facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP, Ld. AO and Ld. TPO erred in not allowing a risk adjustment under Rule 10B(I)(e) for determination of the ALP to account for the difference in the risk profile of the Appellant, a low-risk service provider, a