Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 763 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Section 153A proceedings - Held that:- Initiation of impugned Section 153A proceedings in this set of four assessment years in absence of any incriminating material found in search conducted after finalization of regular assessments is not sustainable. We quote Delhi tribunal’s decision ACIT vs. PACL India Ltd.[2013 (10) TMI 520 - ITAT DELHI] and hold that assessments framed u/s.143(1) and 143(3) of the Act have to be treated at par in such cases. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) in respect of clinical trial expenses - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that assessee has incurred the amount in question on specified purposes only. We find that the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in case of CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (3) TMI 539 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] takes into account explanation to Section 35(2AB)(1) introduced by the Finance Act, 2001 w. E. F. 01.04.2002 and holds that where an assessee company incurs expenses on clinical trials for developing its pharmaceutical products outside a lab facility approved by the prescribed authority (the DSIR), the impugned weighted deduction has to be granted as purpose of this beneficial provision is to encourage scientific research. The Revenue does not point out any distinction on facts and law. Nor does it highlight any factual infirmity in assessee’s claim that the impugned sum has not been incurred on clinical research. We reject the Revenue’s corresponding ground accordingly in A.Y. 2007-08. - Decided against revenue. Weighted deduction of ₹ 3,07,245/- disallowed in the course of assessment - Held that:- There is no dispute has actually incurred the impugned building repair and maintenance sum. The authorities below have invoke the impugned disallowance for want of DSIR approval. It is to be seen that a coordinate bench in ACIT vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 819 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] dealt with an identical issue and held that when an Assessing Officer treats such a building repair and maintenance sum as revenue expenditure, the same is also allowable u/s.35(2AB) of the Act as well. The Revenue fails to quote any case law to the contrary. We accept corresponding ground in its Cross Objection accordingly. Its legal ground challenging initiation of Section 153A proceedings is dismissed as not pressed - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Assessment of book profit u/s.115JB as per original return instead of the revised one - Held that:- CIT(A) at the first instance holds that the assessee’s revised return was filed on 30.12.2009 i. E. on the date of framing of assessment itself. Thereafter, he observes that this revised return was given to the Assessing Officer on 31.12.2009 i.e. after framing of the assessment. There is no justification forthcoming that when revised return was filed on the former date, how it could be given to the Assessing Officer on the next date. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee has sought to compute its book profit afresh. The said computation on merits is yet to be examined. We quote the case law of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court] and hold that entertaining such a plea in absence of a revised return does not bar any appellate authority from exercising its jurisdiction. This said case law clarifies that jurisdiction of appellate authority under the Act is not impinged upon. The Revenue does not point out any case law to the contrary. We observe in these facts that the assessee’s revised return seeking to re-compute its book profit deserves to be examined as per law. Its corresponding ground raised in this appeal is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes
|