Nariman Point, 29th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400021. Mumbai 400005. PAN No. AAACR 4849 R Appellant Respondent IT(TP)A No. 3389/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 200708 ACIT LTU 1, World Trade Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Centre, Centre1, 29th Floor, Vs. 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Nariman Point, 400005. Mumbai 400020 PAN No. AAACR 4849 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Manish Kumar Kanth, AR Revenue by : Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, DR Last Date of Hearing : 18/08/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 11/11/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The captioned cross appealsone filed by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)58, Mumbai [in short 'CIT(A)'] and arise out of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the 'Act'). Since common Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 2 ITA No. 3262/Mum/2017 issues are involved, we are proceedings to dispose off these appeals through a consolidated order. (ITA No. 3262/MUM/2017) 2. The 1st ground of appeal 1.1 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing deduction of Rs. 13,22,52,218/ being "State Taxes" paid overseas on the ground that the payment of "State Taxes" cannot be allowed under the provisions of section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. 1.2 Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider "State Taxes" paid in the USA and Canada, as eligible for the double taxation relief under the provisions of section 90 or 91 of the Act if it is held that the payment of State Taxes is not allowable as deduction. 3. The assesseecompany, engaged in the business of computer software and management consultancy, filed its return of income for the assessment year (AY) 200708 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 305,52,02,180/. The return was revised on 10.02.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 313,12,64,074/. Now we turn to the above ground of appeal. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee had claimed deduction of state taxes paid overseas of Rs.13,22,52,218/ in the return of income. The breakup of it is as under: Country Amount (in Rs.) USA 12,27,39,648/ Canada 95,12,570/ Total 13,22,52,218/ Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. 3 ITA No. 3262/Mum/2017 The Assessing Officer (AO) by relying on the decision in the case of S. Inder Singh Gill, 471 ITR 284 (Bom) and Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., 228 ITR 676 (Karn.) held that the payments were not liable to be allowed as deduction either u/s 37(1) or section 40(a)(ii) of the Act. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the above ground by following the order of the ITAT in assessee's own case for AY 200506 (ITA No. 7513/M/2010) dated 04.11.2015, wherein it is held that : "6. Since admittedly, the Tribunal has decided this issue against the assessee in the case of Tata Sons Ltd. (supra), and the said decision has not been stated to have been stayed on appeal, respectfully following the same, this issue is decided against the assessee. Ground No. 1 stands dismissed." 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the claim for deduction of overseas tax was made by the assessee, based on the following ground: • Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Sons (ITA No. 89 of 1989) • Provisions of section 40(a)(ii) r.w.s. 2(43) disallow ded