Tax, Circle 7(1), Room No. 312, FB02, NSICSTP Complex, Okhla, CR Building, New Delhi New Delhi PANAADCS7828J [Appellant] [Respondent] I.T.A. No. 905/Del/2005 Assessment Year: 200102 M/s System America India Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income FB02, NSICSTP Complex, Okhla, Tax, Circle 7(1), Room No. 312, New Delhi CR Building, New Delhi PANAADCS7828J [Appellant] [Respondent] Department by: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Respondent by: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish Jain, Adv & Ms. Divina Sharma, Adv Date of Hearing: 24 04 2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12 07 2018 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M: These two cross appeals by the Department and assessee are directed against the order dated 27.1.2005 of the learned CIT(A)X, New Delhi. The ground raised in the departmental appeal reads as under: 1 i. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80 HHE overlooking the provisions of subsection (4) of that section which provides that deduction shall not be admissible unless the assessee furnishes in the prescribed form, along with the return of income, the report of an accountant as specified." 2. In the assessee's appeal, following grounds have been raised: 1. That the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in denying deduction under section 10A of the Incometax Act ('the Act') in respect of profits derived from the undertaking providing/exporting software services. 1.1 That the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in denying deduction under section 10A of the Act on the ground that the ownership or the beneficial interest in the undertaking had been transferred during the relevant previous year in terms of the provisions of section 10A(9) of the Act. 1.2 That the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer that shares of the company carrying more than 51% of the voting power on the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal were not beneficially held by the same persons who held the shares of the company carrying not less than 51% of the voting power on the last day of the previous year in which the undertaking was set up. 1.3 That the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the shares held by Smt. Prem Lata should be treated as transferred before the relevant assessment year and, thus, the provisions of subsection (9) of section 10A of the Act could not be applied. 2. That the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in the confirming disallowance of 1/5 of Rs.54,09,474, being issue related expenses claimed under section 35D of the Act on the ground that expenses claimed related to public issue which did not take place. 2.1 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 9,67,500 being the loan documentation expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act on the ground that no details have been furnished by the appellant. 3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in 2 law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 26,49,045 made by the assessing officer, being the amount paid for purchase of software on the ground that no tax was deducted from the payment made.