Court held that the assessee had not segregated its activities into supply of software and maintenance and support services. The entire income derived under the contracts was offered for taxation under section 44BB. Whether the services of updating the software and renewal of licence or warranty services or maintenance of software were inextricably and essentially linked to the supply of the software and were ancillary services was a question of fact that would require determination after examining the dominant purpose of such contracts. There was no factual clarity on this aspect. No distinction or segregation could be inferred with respect to the receipts in the hands of the assessee under the contracts executed by it. The Commissioner being a fact-finding body had failed to give a reasoned order with respect to the nature of income and its subsequent application. Matter remanded to the Commissioner to assess the assessee’s income and tax payable thereon by first determining the nature of the income/receipts in the hands of the assessee. Court also held that  it is well settled that when there are two provisions in an enactment which cannot be reconciled with each other, the doctrine of harmonious construction should be applied and attempt should be to interpret the provisions, if possible, giving effect to both.( AY.2012-13)