JUDGMENT S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. - These Appeals arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 18th June, 2014. The Income Tax Appeal No. 268 of 2016 is for the Assessment Year 2005-2006 and Income Tax Appeal No.273 of 2016 is for the Assessment Year 2007-2008. In Income Tax Appeal No. 268 of 2016, the Revenue has proposed the two re-framed questions and to be treated as substantial questions of law. They read as under:- "1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A) in excluding the expenditure incurred in foreign exchange and communication / internet charges from ''total turnover'' for working out the deduction under Section 10A of the Act? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in directing the Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing Officer to re-work the Arm''s Length Price by excluding the 7 comparables out of 16 selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer" In Income Tax Appeal No.273 of 2016, re-framed Question No.1 is the same substantial question of law. 2. Upon a perusal of these two questions, it is fairly conceded that the first question stands answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India rendered on 24th April, 2018 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III v. HCL Technologies Limited (Civil Appeal Nos.8489-8490 of 2013 and Others). 3. The remaining question and as re-framed pertains to the direction of the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer to rework the Arm''s Length Price by excluding the seven comparables, out of the 16 selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer. 4. Before we refer to the facts in connection with this question, we deem it appropriate to bring to the notice of all concerned, the observations of this Court in two decisions. First rendered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1384 of 2015 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1 v. M/s Barclays Technology Centre India Private Ltd) decided on 26th June, 2018. First rendered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1384 of 2015 (The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1 v. M/s Barclays Technology Centre India Private Ltd) decided on 26th June, 2018. This Court, after discussing some identical comparables and exclusion thereof held that any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated to the Court that the Tribunal or any other lower authority took into account irrelevant considerations or excluded relevant factors in determination of Arm''s Length Price and that impacts significantly the same. This was the observation of the Delhi High Court, which this Court quoted with approval. The order passed in the case of M/s. Barclays was followed by this Bench in (Income Tax Appeal No. 522 of 2016 decided on 24th September, 2018 (The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune v. M/s. TIBCO Software (India) Pvt Ltd, Pune). Yet, we have been finding the Revenue bringing Appeals after Appeals to this Court raising the issue of exclusion of comparables and upholding only of certain comparables by terming them as relevant and germane. We think that whether one instance or one illustration or one entity is comparable to another in determination of the Arm''s Length Price, is essentially a question of fact. There, the relevant factors and tests are applied to the circumstances of the given case. The entity before the Court or Tribunal its business and that of the comparables business activity is, therefore, the crucial issue. We do not see how the Revenue can complain before us when this Court has been emphasizing throughout such an aspect. 5. In the instant case what the Tribunal has noticed while passing the impugned order is that, there are 16 entities selected as comparables. The Transfer Pricing Officer has analyzed various issues in detail, worked out the operating margins of various selected companies and identified 17 comparables whose arithmetic mean of operating profits to total cost was arrived at 26.59%. After working capital adjustment of 1.94%, the arithmetic mean of the PLI was arrived at 24.65%. On operating cost of Rs. 39.24 Crores, Arm''s Length Price of operating cost was arrived at Rs. 48,91,80,921/- and the shortfall was arrived at Rs. 4.27 Crores. The First Appellate Authority, however, deleted one comparable M/s Satyam Technologies and the Assessee got relief to that extent. On operating cost of Rs. 39.24 Crores, Arm''s Length Price of operating cost was arrived at Rs. 48,91,80,921/- and the shortfall was arrived at Rs. 4.27 Crores. The First Appellate Authority, however, deleted one comparable M/s Satyam Technologies and the Assessee got relief to that extent. The final list of 16 cases selected by Transfer Price Officer after the order of the Appellate Authority has then been referred. Pertinently, in paragraph 5.2 of the order under Appeal, the Tribunal holds that the Assessee is not objecting to the comparables selected by Transfer Pricing Officer from Item Nos. 1 to 9. Therefore, there is no dispute with reference to the comparables of the above nine companies. The dispute arises with regard to the balance seven companies from Sr. Nos.10 to 16. The Assessee was also objecting to the rejection of two comparables , namely one Birla Technologies Limited and another v. J. I. L. Consulting Limited. These were rejected by the Transfer Pricing Officer on the reason that they are persistent loss making/functionally different companies. 6. After this, the Tribunal referred to each of these seven comparables in great details and then concluded that there is substance in the objection of the Assessee. The Tribunal in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 concludes as under:- "8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is an extra-ordinary event which resulted in high operating margin of that company and we, therefore, direct the AO to exclude this company from the list of comparables. In the above referred case of Intoto Software India Pvt Ltd, complete details were not placed on record, therefore, the matter was sent to AO for verification whereas in this case assessee has objected even before the AO/CIT(A), therefore, there is no need to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for examination as was done in the case of Intoto Software (supra). We are, therefore, of the opinion that on the basis of facts placed on record, the case of Exensys Software Solutions Ltd. cannot be taken as comparable. 9. Similarly, the other cases, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, Four Soft Ltd, Infosys, Sankhya Infotech Ltd, Thirdware Solutions Ltd, Tata Elexi (seg) etc, are also to be excluded as they are considered and analyzed in various cases relied on about functionality and why the same are not comparable to the companies like assessee. 9. Similarly, the other cases, Bodhtree Consulting Ltd, Four Soft Ltd, Infosys, Sankhya Infotech Ltd, Thirdware Solutions Ltd, Tata Elexi (seg) etc, are also to be excluded as they are considered and analyzed in various cases relied on about functionality and why the same are not comparable to the companies like assessee. Bodhtree consulting Ltd also fails RPT filter as contended. In view of this, we are not discussing above comparables in detail, but, suffice to say that assessee''s submissions are valid. The AO is directed to exclude the above comparables and rework out the arm''s length margin accordingly. The ground No.8 and additional ground raised by Assessee are considered as allowed. 10. Inclusion of 2 Comparables :(ground no. 7) 1. Birla Technologies Ltd. 2. VJIL Consulting Limited 11. The assessee is requesting for inclusion of the above companies on the reason that TPO erred in not selecting these companies on extraneous reasons stating that Birla Technologies Limited was incurring persistent losses. It was submitted that company has operating profits for the financial year 2005- 06 and referred to the net margins computation as per annexure-5 filed before the CIT(A). Further, with reference to the VJIL Consulting Limited, it was submitted that payment of VAT does not indicate that assessee is engaged in sale of computer software and unless the same is analysed, rejection of the company just because it paid VAT on sales is not correct." 7. Hence, in paragraph 12, the Tribunal worked out the price after accepting the Assessee''s objections and allowed Ground Nos. 1 to 11. 8. On perusal of these paragraphs very carefully and the reasons assigned for deletion of these seven entities as comparables, we are not in agreement with Mr. Mohanty that the instant Appeals raise any substantial question of law. This is not a matter where the Revenue can project the questions as re-framed as substantial questions of law. That is referring to a mixed issue of fact and law. After the legal principles are noted, they have to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the circumstances, the Tribunal''s order deleting the comparables as prayed by the Assessee containing reasons, cannot be termed either as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 9. After the legal principles are noted, they have to be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the circumstances, the Tribunal''s order deleting the comparables as prayed by the Assessee containing reasons, cannot be termed either as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 9. Once we reach the above conclusion, we are of the opinion that the re-framed Question No.2 is also not a substantial question of law. Consequently, the Appeals fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.