Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. .... Respondent ITA No.2610/PN/2012 (Assessment Year : 200910) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. .... Appellant Vs. Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Cybercity, Tower S4, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028. PAN : AABCC8321Q .... Respondent C.O. No.06/PN/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.2610/PN/2012) (Assessment Year : 200910) Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Cybercity, Tower S4, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028. PAN : AABCC8321Q .... Cross Objector Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. .... Appellant in Appeal ITA No.116/PN/2014 (Assessment Year : 201011) Clarion Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Tower S4, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028. PAN : AABCC8321Q .... Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. .... Respondent 2 ITA No.2444/PN/2012 C.O. No.01/PN/2014 Assessee by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa Department by : Shri A. K. Modi ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM The captioned four appeals relate to the same assessee and involve certain common issues therefore they have been heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, interalia, engaged in the business of development of computer software and ITES services. The assessee's undertaking at Pune is registered with Software Technology Park of India (STPI) as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The undertaking was granted approval by the Director, STPI as 100% EOU on 26.05.2004. The profits derived by the undertaking from development of software and export thereof were claimed as exempt as per the provisions of section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (in short "the Act"). The exemption relating to the profit derived from export of software development is the substantive dispute in the appeals before us. In assessment year 201011, the Assessing Officer denied claim made by the assessee for exemption u/s 10B of the Act on the ground that the assessee's undertaking was not approved by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government u/s 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 whereas the assessee was granted approval by Director, STPI only. The aforesaid stand of the Assessing Officer was based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Regency Creations Ltd., (2012) 27 taxmann.com 322 (Del). However, the aforesaid objection was not raised by the Assessing Officer in the immediately preceding assessment year of 200910 wherein the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of exemption u/s 10B of the Act inprinciple with certain modification 3 ITA No.2444/PN/2012 C.O. No.01/PN/2014 regarding the quantification of the claim on account of assessee's offices at Ahmedabad and Bangalore. In assessment year 200910, CIT(A) also concurred with the assessee for exemption u/s 10B of the Act inprinciple but differed with the assessee only on account of the quantification of the claim. 3. In this background, now in so far as assessment year 201011 is concerned, assessee vide its appeal in ITA No.116/PN/2014 is assailing the stand of the incometax authorities in holding that assessee is not eligible for the claim of exemption u/s 10B of the Act. This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A) I, Pune dated 31.10.2013 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated