JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, during January, 1999. According to them, Jon F. Technology Centre is a cent. per cent. export oriented unit approved by the office of the Development Commissioner. Cochin Export Processing Zone and was granted exemption fro a period of five years from March 9, 2005. The petitioner claimed deduction under section 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was allowed by the second respondent for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The petitioner also claimed deduction under section 10A of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03 till 2005-06, which were allowed under section 143(3) of the Act. During March, 2004, the petitioner obtained approval from the Ministry of Science and Technology for recognising it as a research and development company claiming tax holiday as per section 80-IB(8) of the Act and the same was intimated to the second respondent. However, the petitioner did not claim such exemption. During April 2004, a company-Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. (EACoE) amalgamated with the petitioner as a going concern pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation being approved by this High Court. 2. According to the petitioner, since there is no change in the activity of the petitioner despite amalgamation, returns were filed for the assessment year 2006-07 claiming deduction under section 10A of the Act as was claimed for the previous year, and the same was allowed by the second respondent. However, against the draft assessment order of the second respondent, the Transfer Pricing Officer, while determining the arm's length price under section 92B of the Act, has determined the arm's length price at Rs. 406 crores during October, 2009, as against the draft assessment order made by the second respondent at Rs. 305 crores. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). However, the Dispute Resolution Panel having distinguished opined that the arm's length price should have been Rs. 336 crores instead of Rs. 406 crores. It appears, the Dispute Resolution Panel has also made certain observation in para. 21 of its order at annexure A as regards the claim of the petitioner regarding deduction under section 10A of the Act. However, the Dispute Resolution Panel having distinguished opined that the arm's length price should have been Rs. 336 crores instead of Rs. 406 crores. It appears, the Dispute Resolution Panel has also made certain observation in para. 21 of its order at annexure A as regards the claim of the petitioner regarding deduction under section 10A of the Act. According to the petitioner, the Dispute Resolution Panel ought not to have gone into the question of extension of section 10A benefit, while revising the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer and that the Assessing Officer alone should have calculated the exemption under section 10A of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court against the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel directing the Assessing Officer for considering the claim of the petitioner for deduction under section 10A of the Act on the ground that the Dispute Resolution Panel has committed an error and, accordingly, has sought for quashing para. 21 of the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel. 3. It is the submission of the standing counsel for the Revenue, section 144(5) and (8) of the Act provides for such direction to be issued. There is no such error committed and it is for the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer and to explain the factual position, who shall consider the same before passing the final order of assessment since the proposal made by the Dispute Resolution Panel is only on the basis of draft assessment order and the Dispute Resolution Panel has revised the same as the Transfer Pricing Officer's calculation of the arm's length price is on the higher side. Accordingly, it is contended, there is no error as such committed by the Dispute Resolution Panel and there is scope for the petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer who shall hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 4. Per contra, senior counsel representing the petitioner, submitted section 144C(8) of the Act provides for to confirm or reduce the variations proposed in the draft and it shall not set aside any proposed variations or issue any direction. Accordingly, he submitted such direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel is bad in law. 4. Per contra, senior counsel representing the petitioner, submitted section 144C(8) of the Act provides for to confirm or reduce the variations proposed in the draft and it shall not set aside any proposed variations or issue any direction. Accordingly, he submitted such direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel is bad in law. Learned counsel, referring to two decisions of the apex court and one decision of the Delhi High Court, con- tended that despite alternate remedy available, he can move this court under article 226 of the Constitution to set right the things, i.e., there is lack of jurisdiction on the Dispute Resolution Panel in directing the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the impugned order at annexure A, para. 21 needs interference. 5. Section 144C of the Act provides for reference to the Dispute Resolution Panel. In the case on hand, at the first instance, the draft assessment has been made and thereafter, at the instance of the Transfer Pricing Officer, the arm's length price was calculated at Rs. 406 crores and, as such variation was on the higher side, the petitioner approached the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Dispute Resolution Panel arrived at a conclusion that it is not Rs. 406 crores, rather it is Rs. 336 crores. 6. It appears, according to the learned senior counsel, as regards the difference of Rs. 29 crores arrived at the time of resolution of dispute by the Dispute Resolution Panel, it is open to be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal and the petitioner will have recourse at a later stage. But, according to him, the Dispute Resolution Panel ought not to have gone into the question of exemption available under section 10A of the Act in so far as the entire amount of Rs. 305 crores which was originally assessed at the time of draft assessment. According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer has already considered the aspect of exemption under section 10A in the draft assessment order and that could not have been either dis-allowed or reconsidered at the hands of the Dispute Resolution Panel. 7. Section 144C(4) of the Act provides, the Assessing Officer shall, not- withstanding anything contained in section 153, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which-(a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. 8. 7. Section 144C(4) of the Act provides, the Assessing Officer shall, not- withstanding anything contained in section 153, pass the assessment order under sub-section (3) within one month from the end of the month in which-(a) the acceptance is received; or (b) the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires. 8. Section 144C(6) of the Act reads, the Dispute Resolution Panel shall issue directions referred to in sub-section (5) after considering the draft order, objection filed by the assessee, evidence furnished by the assessee and the report of the Assessing Officer, Valuation Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer. Sub-section (7) provides that, the Dispute Resolution Panel before issuing any direction as per sub-section (5) make such further inquiry as it thinks fit, or cause any further inquiry to be made by any income-tax authority and report the result of the same to it. 9. In the case on hand, the Dispute Resolution Panel has taken into consideration the aspect of exemption under section 10A of the Act as not available in so far as Rs. 305 crores which was arrived at by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment and also issued a direction referring to clause (5) of section 144C of the Act. According to the petitioner, apart from several other aspects, i.e., computer software which carries exemption under section 10A of the Act, on the ground that design and engineering does not fall within the definition of "computer software" and also on the ground that no details have been given regarding to the income earned, if any, from the segment, the Dispute Resolution Panel has opined that the Assessing Officer may consider this claim if the assessee submits necessary information showing that it has earned income from engineering and design services and the same qualified for deduction under section 10A of the Act or not and the Assessing Officer shall decide the claim of the asses- see on the merits. So, the main thrust of the observation of the Dispute Resolution Panel is, since the petitioner was also involved in engineering and design services, it may not come under section 10A to claim exemption, by classifying it as computer software. So, the main thrust of the observation of the Dispute Resolution Panel is, since the petitioner was also involved in engineering and design services, it may not come under section 10A to claim exemption, by classifying it as computer software. However, liberty is kept open to the Assessing Officer to decide, after hearing the petitioner, as to what, is the earnings from engineering and design services and whether it falls within the definition of "computer software" so as to extend the benefit under section 10A as per the notification of the Government. 10. The notification dated September 26, 2000 ([2000] 245 ITR (St.) 102), is issued in exercise of powers under the Explanation to section 80HHE and the Explanation to sections 10A and 10B of the Income-tax Act and the Central Board of Direct Taxes specifies such exemption to the information technology enabled products or services. However, by the impugned order, the Dispute Resolution Panel either without taking note of the notification or having expressed a doubt, has directed the Assessing Officer to consider whether engineering and design comes within the purview of section 10A of the Act for exemption or how much income has been derived from this so as to seek exemption or whether it is exempted or not. 11. It appears it is not as if the matter has been concluded by the Dispute Resolution Panel. Rather it has kept open the issue whether engineering and design services fall within the definition of "computer software" or not for the purpose of extending the benefit of exemption, to be decided by the Assessing Officer, after hearing the petitioner. As submitted by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel is binding on the Assessing Officer as to the quantum to be arrived at. Of course, but since the Dispute Resolution Panel itself has given liberty to the Assessing Officer to take further action before finalising the assessment order, in my opinion, it is still open to the Assessing Officer to decide, after hearing the petitioner and based on the objection, if any filed, pursuant to the directions issued. Thus, in my view, the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel is not in violation of section 144C(5) or (8) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Thus, in my view, the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel is not in violation of section 144C(5) or (8) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner to approach the Assessing Officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, who in turn, shall take further action in according with law within two months, thereafter.