Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1342 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 32(1)(iia) read with the second proviso - left over additional depreciation brought forward from immediately preceding assessment year - HELD THAT:- The identical issue in the case of assessee herein has already been considered by this Court in [2021 (8) TMI 1341 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hence Question No.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Deduction u/s 80-IA - Whether DG Power Generation Units constituted an "undertaking" for the purpose of deduction? - HELD THAT:- The identical issue in the case of assessee herein has already been considered by this Court in [2021 (7) TMI 1387 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hence Question No.3 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Addition made u/s.36(1) (va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) in respect of belated payment of employees' contribution to PF - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has already been considered by this Court in [2019 (4) TMI 370 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Hence Question No.4 is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) in respect of the salary paid on outdoor R & D facility - question refers to salary paid at an outdoor R&D facility and the payment is without qualification of the DSIR - HELD THAT:- The question does not refer to the circumstances considered and accepted by the DRP while appreciating the claim of expenditure to accept the salary paid by the assessee company to Mr.Peter Becker, an employee of subsidiary of the assessee as an allowable expenditure. The assessee demonstrated the utilisation of services and once the salary paid to Mr.Peter Becker is accepted as expenditure, the reason to disallow weighted deduction is completely wanting. The department could not before the Tribunal demonstrate that the expenditure accepted in respect of Mr.Peter Becker is untenable in fact. The services are stated to have been taken and remuneration paid to the employee in the field, section accords weighted deduction as additional deduction. The findings of fact recorded by the DRP and the Tribunal are available in the circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the question framed is without merit. Hence question is answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
|