Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1818 - HC - Income TaxTP adjustment - Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) - addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted on substantial question of law from 1 to 10 Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) - revenue expenditure on clinical trials, patent, trade mark registration charges - Tribunal upholding the assessee's claim of weighted deduction - HELD THAT:- With respect to question (6) above, however, there shall be a caveat. The assessee had during the course of assessment proceedings claimed weighted deduction at the rate of 150% in terms of section 35(2AB). The Assessing Officer refused to grant such claim on the ground that no such claim was raised in the return filed and without filing revised return, such claim would not be sustainable. In appeal, CIT(A) in relation to this ground for rejection, also pressed the ground of the expenditure being in relation to inhouse R&D facility approved by DSIR. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd.v. CIT [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] would not prevent examination of a claim which was based on material already existed on record. The Tribunal noted that such material already existed. We are in agreement with this view of the Tribunal. Tribunal has not opined on the correctness of the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the expenditure in question being in relation to establishment of R&D facilities approved by DSIR. To this limited extent, such question would be examined. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Such issues have been coming before the Revenue authorities with respect to this very assessee in past. In the assessment for the assessment year 200708, the Tribunal had approved application of the formula under rule 8D of the Rules, though at the relevant time such rule was not yet brought in force on the ground that such formula would be the most fair means of making disallowance. In the later years, when the rule was already brought under the statute book, such formula was ordered to be applied. We notice that such issue had approved before this Court on earlier occasions as well. In the result, these two questions are not considered.
|