Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that  , the assessee received back office work from the legal department of software companies in the U. S. A. These companies assigned back office work of registering their technology in the U. S. A. patent office. The applications were prepared and finalised and signatures were obtained in the declaration. For development of work product as patent application, the U. S. patent application contained drawings and specifications. The drawings were generated using computer aided design software and specifications were written using word processing software. The back office standard required a level of control over formulation of the editing of the content of the application, which was possible only with the use of information technology. The activities of the assessee could be classified as data processing, legal databases and remote maintenance in terms of the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The assessee was transmitting the patent application and related data, which was stored in electronic form and therefore, such data was customized data and the assessee was eligible for deduction under section 10A. The Revenue itself had granted the benefit of deduction to the assessee by order dated January 27, 2006 in respect of the assessment year 2003-04 under section 80HHE of the Act, which was pari materia to section 10A.  Order of the Tribunal is affirmed . ( AY.2009-10, 2010-11)