Company (India) Private Income Tax Circle 3(1) Limited Aayakar Bhavan 301, Solitaire Corporate Park M.K.Road, 151, M.V.Road Mumbai 400 020 Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAACE12602B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No.344/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :201011) Deputy Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Emerson Electric Company Income Tax Circle (India) Private Limited 3(1) 301, Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan 151, M.V.Road M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAACE12602B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dinesh Bafna, Shri Pratik Shah and Shri Nishant Shah Revenue by Shri Jeevantal Lavidiya and Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing 23/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 09/10/2019 2 ITA Nos. 372/Mum/2017 & 344/Mum/2017 M/s. Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt.Ltd. आदे श / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): These cross appeals in ITA Nos.372/Mum/2017 & 344/Mum/2017 for A.Y.201011 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)56, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)56/TP/DCIT3(1)/2016 17/63E dated 30/09/2016 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 11/04/2014 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). Since, the issues involved are identical in all these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. ITA NO.372/Mum/2017 (A.Y.201011) Assessee Appeal 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the assessee is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the action of the ld. AO in proportionately allocating the head office expenses while computing the profit eligible for deduction u/s.10A / 10B of the Act. 3. We have heard the rival submissions. Both the parties before us fairly conceded that this issue has been remanded back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication in A.Y.200910 by the order of this Tribunal for the A.Y.200910 in ITA No.4142/Mum/2018 dated 25/09/2017 wherein it was held as under: "13. We have heard both the parties and considered the materials available on record. The AO has allocated head office expenses proportionately for units claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B, on the basis of the turnover of the units. According to the AO, the assessee has parked 3 ITA Nos. 372/Mum/2017 & 344/Mum/2017 M/s. Emerson Electric Company (India) Pvt.Ltd. its head office expenses for the units generating taxable income without any valid reasons for not allocating expense to the units claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B. The assessee claims that head office expenditure in no way connected to the units claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B and the units are functioning independently. Therefore, the AO was incorrect in allocating head office expenses to the units claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B. We do not find any merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that on perusal of the details of expenditure incurred by the assessee it is difficult to accept explanation of the assessee that head office expenditure has no relevance to the units claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B. The assessee is having four units based at various locations which were controlled through its headquarter. The expenditure incurred by head office like travel and conveyance, communication expenses, legal and professional charges and rates and taxes definitely is having relevance to its total business. Therefore, we are of the view that the AO was right in allocating head office expenses to the units eligible for claiming exemption u/s 10A / 10B of the Act. We further observe that there