PAN AAACI 4403 L. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate along with Ajay Roti, C.A Respondent by : Shri K.V Arvind, Advocate, Standing Counsel along Shri Dilip Advocate for Dept. Date of Hearing : 03062020 Date of Pronouncement : 31072020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 08/01/2018 passed by Ld.ACIT Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore, under section 143 (3) r.w s.144C (1) and 92CD of the Act, on following grounds of appeal: IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.201314 1. Assessment order bad in law 1.1. At the outset, M/s IBM India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant' or 'the Company') prays that the order dated January 8, 2018 received on January 10, 2018, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) and section 92CD of the Incometax Act, 1961 ('Act'), by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore ('ACIT'), be struck down as invalid, as the order is bad in law and on facts. 2. Reliance on the Draft Assessment Order ('DAO') of AY 200910 for making adjustments for AY 201314 2.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') have erred in law and on facts by placing reliance on the DAO of AY 200910. Specifically, the learned ACIT and Hon'ble DRP have erred: a) In not following the settled legal principle of res judicata not applying to income tax proceedings; b) In not appreciating the fact that the order on which the learned ACIT had placed reliance was a draft assessment order; C) In not appreciating the fact that the erstwhile DAO passed by the erstwhile Assessing Officer has been quashed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court vide its order dated July 18, 2016. ; and d) In placing reliance on the DAO of AY 200910 without application of mind and without taking cognizance of the submissions/ arguments put forth during the assessment proceedings of AY 201314. 3. Denial of relief under section IOAA of the Act 3.1. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts in denying the relief claimed by the Appellant under section 10AA of the Act of INR 303,16,58,824. The learned ACIT has also erred in law and on fact in denying the relief claimed by the Appellant under section 10AA of the Act on the incremental revenue pursuant to the Advance Pricing Arrangement entered by the Appellant. 3.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by holding that the Appellant did not have any evidence for manufacture and export of computer software from eligible units in Special Economic Zone ('SEZ'). The Hon'ble DRP has erred in fact in concluding that since Document of Understanding/Statement of Work are not registered with the SEZ authorities, the requirements of section 10AA of the Act are not met. 3.3. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by concluding that the Appellant had made contrary submissions in connection to transmission or export of computer software outside India from its SEZ units without taking cognizance of the submissions made by the Appellant. 3.4. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts by concluding that the various obligations and procedures prescribed under the SEZ 2 IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.201314 schemes and regulations have not been adhered to and that for claiming tax benefit the same has to be complied with. 3.5. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the unit wise P&L account submitted by the Appellant in relation to the eligible units was not a reliable document for allowing claim under section 10AA of the Act. 3.6. The learned ACIT and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in law and on facts by not taking cognizance of the judicial pre