Appeal partially allowed, exclusions directed, issues restored, working capital adjustment granted, and depreciation rate set.

The appeal was partly allowed with the Tribunal directing the exclusion of Infosys Technologies Ltd from comparables, restoring the issue of Nucleus Netsoft & Gis India Ltd and working capital adjustment to the Transfer Pricing Officer, and granting a 60% depreciation rate on computer accessories. Other grounds were either not addressed in detail or upheld as per the Dispute Resolution Panel's and Transfer Pricing Officer's findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjustment in arm's length price of international transactions.
2. Rejection of Transfer Pricing (TP) documentation.
3. Non-provision of adjustment on account of risk differential.
4. Use of multiple year/prior year data for comparable companies.
5. Inclusion/exclusion of comparable companies.
6. Denial of working capital adjustment.
7. Depreciation rate on computer accessories.
8. Deduction under section 10A on disallowed depreciation.
9. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
10. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjustment in Arm's Length Price:
The TPO made an upward adjustment of Rs. 30,71,50,845/- for the software segment and Rs. 16,25,98,555/- for IT enabled services. This was based on the average arm's length mark-up on cost of comparable companies. The DRP confirmed the TPO's findings, rejecting the assessee's objections.

2. Rejection of TP Documentation:
The TPO rejected the assessee's TP study, which used the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking. The DRP upheld this rejection, agreeing with the TPO's selection of comparables and denial of working capital adjustment.

3. Non-provision of Risk Adjustment:
The TPO and DRP did not provide adjustments for the limited risk nature of the assessee's services compared to entrepreneurial comparables. The DRP found no substantial force in the assessee's arguments.

4. Use of Multiple Year/Prior Year Data:
The TPO used data available at the time of assessment proceedings instead of the financial year 2005-06 data. The assessee's objection to this was upheld by the DRP.

5. Inclusion/Exclusion of Comparable Companies:
- Infosys Technologies Ltd: The TPO included Infosys as a comparable, but the Tribunal found it functionally dissimilar due to its diversified operations, brand value, and substantial R&D expenditure. The Tribunal directed its exclusion.
- Nucleus Netsoft & Gis India Ltd: Initially included by the assessee, objections were raised later. The Tribunal restored this issue to the TPO for reconsideration due to functional dissimilarities and restructuring impacts.

6. Denial of Working Capital Adjustment:
The TPO denied the working capital adjustment due to insufficient data. The Tribunal restored this issue to the TPO for de novo consideration, as the assessee contested the TPO's findings and claimed to have provided accurate data.

7. Depreciation Rate on Computer Accessories:
The AO allowed depreciation at 15% instead of the claimed 60%. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, directed that depreciation be granted at 60% for computer accessories/peripherals.

8. Deduction under Section 10A:
The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the detailed analysis, focusing instead on the depreciation rate and its impact.

9. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue, as the primary arguments focused on TP adjustments and depreciation rates.

10. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The Tribunal did not address this issue in detail, as the appeal primarily concerned TP adjustments and depreciation claims.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the exclusion of Infosys Technologies Ltd from comparables, restored the issue of Nucleus Netsoft & Gis India Ltd and working capital adjustment to the TPO, and granted a 60% depreciation rate on computer accessories. Other grounds were either not addressed in detail or upheld as per the DRP's and TPO's findings.

---