JUDGMENT : (P.S Dinesh Kumar, J.) These appeals by the Revenue challenging the orders dated 03/05/2019 passed in ITA Nos. 126/BANG/2016 for Assessment Year, 2011-2012 and 1822/BANG/2015 for AY 2012-13, respectively passed by the ITAT, "C" Bench, Bangalore, have been admitted to consider following common questions of law in both the appeals: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in dismissing the appeals preferred by Revenue by setting the disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of future expenses claimed as deduction by relying on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Calcutta Co. Ltd v. CIT and another case namely, BEML Ltd (Reported in 245 ITR page 428) when the facts in the present case are not identical. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the disallowance made by assessing authority in respect of future expenses claimed as deduction by erroneously holding that provision for future expenses in the case of the assessee is an allowable expenses ignoring the fact that the provision claimed was not on the basis of past event, quantification of the same was not substantiated before assessing authority which are the guidelines/principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BE ML Ltd (reported in 245 ITR page 428) for allowing estimated future liabilities with regard to assessee's following mercantile system of accounting." 2. Heard Shri.Dilip, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri.Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for the Assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are, Assessee is a consortium participated in the tender floated by BMRCL (Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited) and bagged a contract for designing, construction of tunnels and other civil works. The total project cost is Rs.9,95,20,00,000/-. The total projected future expenses (unbillable) is Rs.58,62,00,000/-. The unbillable expenses include reconstruction of roads damaged while constructing tunnels and during the other construction activities undertaken by the Assessee. Out of the total unbillable expenses, Rs.28.91 crores is towards the cost of designing and Rs.29.69 crores is towards rebuilding of roads, foot paths, etc., damaged during the construction work. The unbillable expenses are inbuilt in the contract and payment for the same is made by the contractor and not BMRCL. 4. Out of the total unbillable expenses, Rs.28.91 crores is towards the cost of designing and Rs.29.69 crores is towards rebuilding of roads, foot paths, etc., damaged during the construction work. The unbillable expenses are inbuilt in the contract and payment for the same is made by the contractor and not BMRCL. 4. Based on the turnover, the Assessee - contractor makes provision for expenses. For AY 2011-12 Assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.3.2011 of Rs.6,66,64,500/- and for AY 2012-13 Rs. 12,12,28,476/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said provisions. The CIT(A) allowed the same on the ground that the provision was not contingent one, but based or the matching expenditure on ascertained liability. CIT(A)'s order has been upheld by the ITAT by dismissing the Revenue's Appeals. 5. Shri.Dilip submitted that so far as the design aspect is concerned, the provision made by the Assessee will have to be allowed. But so far as the provision made towards construction of roads, etc., requires examination of actual expenditure by the AO. It is submitted that in similar circumstances for AY 2013-14, ITAT has remanded the matter to AO to examine the factual matrix. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing these appeals and to remand the matter to the AO for reconsideration. 6. Shri.Shankar for the Assessee submitted that since the component towards design has been accepted by the Revenue, the only thing that remains for consideration is the component towards construction of roads and other civil works. The Assessee, based on the turnover for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13, had made corresponding provisions for expenses as on 31.3.2011 and 31.3.2012. Adverting to the AO's order, he pointed out that the Assessee had enclosed the entire technical estimate and the cost in execution of the jobs for the respective years. Thus, the entire record was before the AO arid the same has been rightly observed by the ITAT in para 12 of the impugned order. It is submitted that similar provision made for AY 2013-14 has been allowed by the AO and no disallowance was ordered for AY 2014-15 also. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 8. The undisputed acts of the case are, the unbillable expenses is Rs.58.62 crores. Out of that, Rs.28.91 crores is towards designing and Rs.29.69 crores is towards construction of roads, etc. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 8. The undisputed acts of the case are, the unbillable expenses is Rs.58.62 crores. Out of that, Rs.28.91 crores is towards designing and Rs.29.69 crores is towards construction of roads, etc. There is no grievance by the Revenue so far as the design aspect is concerned. With regard to the provision for expenses towards construction of roads and other civil works, the contention urged on behalf of the Revenue is that the AO has not correctly examined the factual matrix. 9. Shri.Shankar is right in his submission that AO in his order has extracted a copy of the communication between the Assessee and the department, which shows that the Assessee had enclosed technical documents, costs and computation for arriving at a provision for the respective years. This has been noted by the ITAT in para 12 of the impugned order. In addition, ITAT has recorded that AO has noted the details of expenditure in his order and the same has been extracted in ITAT's order also. 10. It was urged on behalf of the Revenue that for AY 2013-14 the matter was remanded to the AO. There is no parity insofar as an order of remand is concerned. It is based on the facts of each case. Further, even for the said AY 2013-14, after remand, AO has accepted the provision made by the Assessee. For the subsequent years, namely AY 2014-15 no disallowance has been made. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the provision for expenses is made on pro rata basis based on the turnover with reference to total unbillable future expenses of the project. 11. In view of the above, we find no error in the orders passed by the ITAT. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeals are dismissed; (ii) The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.