IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 172/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. CIT-15(1)(2), Caliber Point Business Solutions th Room No. 403, 4 Floor, Ltd. Building No.3, Sector-II, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Millenium Business Park, ITC Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Industrial Area, Mhape, Navi Mumbai-400 710 PAN/GIR No. AACCC 3705 H (Appellant) : ( Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh Respondent by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala : 17.8.2016 Date of Hearing : 28.09 .2016 Date of Pronouncement ORDER Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: This is appeal filed by Revenue against order by ld. CIT(A)-22, Mumbai dated 21.10.2014 for assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. We have considered rival contentions and found that ground no. 1 raised by Revenue is incorrect insofar as CIT(A) has not adjudicated same. ld. DR and ld. AR fairly conceded that matter with regard to computing 2 ITA No. 172/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2009 -10) Asst. CIT vs. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. disallowance u/s. 14A while computing book profit u/s. 115JB, be restored back to file of CIT(A) for deciding afresh. 3. With regard to assessee s claim of deduction u/s. 10A, ld. CIT(A) held that assessee is engaged in software development activity outsourced to parent company was eligible for deduction u/s.10A if same was located in STPI area. In this regard, we find that assessee company claimed deduction u/s. 10A of Act in respect of income arising from such outsourced work to its parent company. Assessing Officer disallowed claim of deduction u/s. 10A of Act on ground that said income was not derived from industrial undertaking. 4. CIT(A) following order of Hon ble Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 directed Assessing Officer to verify fact whether outsourced work was done by unit located in STPI, and if said fact is established then Assessing Officer should grant deduction u/s.10A of Act. We find that issue has been considered in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 being ITA No. 6490/Mum/2011 order dated 13.2.2013 wherein Hon ble Tribunal has held that he assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.10A of Act on work outsourced to other company provided said company is also located in STPI unit. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in directions so issued by CIT(A). 5. In result, ground no. 2 taken by Revenue is dismissed. 6. In ground no. 3, Revenue is aggrieved for allowing claim of expenses not made in return of income. 7. We have considered rival contentions and found that during course of assessment proceedings for A.Y.2008-09 assessee claimed deduction of expenses and AO disallowed same u/s.40(a)(ia) by observing that same is allowable on payment basis. We found that said expenditure was disallowed in A.Y. 2008-09, by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A). However, during year under consideration, TDS has been deducted and paid on said expenses. Assessing Officer held that assessee had not proved that taxes were paid in current year. 3 ITA No. 172/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2009 -10) Asst. CIT vs. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. He held that as per decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) claim made other than by filing revised return of income cannot be admitted. 8. By impugned order CIT(A), after verifying fact that TDS was deducted and paid on expenses claimed as deduction, held that assessee company is eligible to claim deduction of said expenses even though same was not claimed in return of income. 9. We do not find any infirmity in order of CIT(A). In view of decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) wherein it was held that appellate authorities have power to admit additional claim made by assessee even though same has not been made in return of income. It was also held that decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) applies only to Assessing Officer and not appellate authorities. 10. In view of above, CIT(A) has rightly followed decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in case of M/s. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Ground no. 3 raised by Revenue is dismissed. 11. In result, appeal of Revenue is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in open court on 28/09/2016 Sd/- sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Mumbai; Dated : 28.09.2016 . . Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 4 ITA No. 172/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2009 -10) Asst. CIT vs. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd. 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Asst. CIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai v. Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd