आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.489/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 NTT Data Business Solutions Private The DCIT, Limited, Hyderabad. vs. Circle-5(1), PIN -500081. Hyderabad.

PAN AADCI1557Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: CA Aliasgar Rampurawala राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 10.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Final Assessment Order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, for the assessment year 2018-2019.

2. The has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“The grounds mentioned herein are mutually exclusive Le.

independent of each other and without prejudice to one another, Jurisdictional Ground

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the final order passed by the Assessment Unit instead of National Faceless Assessment Centre is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of section 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act')

and hence liable to be quashed.

Transfer Pricing Grounds

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (Hon'ble DRP') erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO') /Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ('Ld. TPO') in making an adjustment of INR 27,07,42,005 to the international transaction pertaining to provision of software consultancy and support services and an adjustment of INR 14.43.706 by levying notional interest on trade receivables.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the transfer pricing study report, which was maintained in good faith and with due diligence.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. AO/Ld.

TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in making an adjustment in relation to the provision of software consultancy and support services at entity level and in doing so ignored the segmental revenue between Associated Enterprises (AE) and Non-AE.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in re-characterizing the Appellant as software development service provider as against the provision of software consultancy and support services provider with respect to the functions carried out by the Appellant detailed in the transfer pricing documentation.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting certain filters applied by the Appellant.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in applying certain additional filters which are not relevant to the Appellant.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO/Hon'ble DRP erred in including the following companies in the comparable set which are not Appellant's functions, asset base and risk profile:

 Mindtree Ltd.

 Great Software Laboratory Pvt. Ltd  Sagarsoft (India) Ltd  Nihilent Ltd.

 Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd  Infobeans Technologies Ltd  Cybage Software Pvt. Ltd  Tata Elxsi Limited-Software Development & Services Segment

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.

AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP erred in excluding following companies from the comparable set which are comparable to the Appellant's functions, asset base and risk profile:

 Bhilwara Infotechnology Limited  ASM Technologies Ltd  Collabera Technologies P Ltd

10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.

AO/Ld. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP, without prejudice t