Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 193 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s.37 - contribution made by the assessee for non-business purposes viz. Contribution to Ranbaxy Community Health Care Society and contribution to Ranbaxy science foundation - Held that:- The pension would be paid to the employees upon their resignation or retirement or to the member of the family in event of premature death of the employee the liability was ascertained through scientific method. The claim of deduction on the basis of provision made for future liability which is ascertainable and ascertained through scientific statistical data is well recognized through series of judgments. We do not see the Tribunal has therefore committed any error. Our attention was however drawn to the judgment in case of Dishergarh Power Supply Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, (1990 (3) TMI 374 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT). It was however a case where the assessee had claimed deduction on payment of pension on actual basis as well as towards provision for future actuarial basis which the High Court found was not permissible. We notice that very High Court in case of this very assessee in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.(2011 (3) TMI 1032 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) upheld the assessee's claim of deduction. This question is therefore not considered. VAT deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB) - AO disallowed a part of the claim on the ground that it did not relate to the in-house research facility created by the assessee - CIT (A) under Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee - Held that:- Tribunal, in impugned order, noted that the expenditure was incurred for vehicles, computers and other assets provided to the employees of the company who are working at the approved research facility and were directly engaged in the research and development activities. Thus, the expenditure was held to be related to the in-house research activity. This question is therefore not considered. Revenue expenditure claimed towards convertible bonds - Held that:- Tribunal while confirming the view of the CIT (Appeals) recorded that the conversion of the bonds into shares never took place. Entire loan was repaid alongwith redemption premium by the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue however submitted that by very nature of things, the bonds were convertible. The expenditure should therefore be seen as increasing the share capital of the company and therefore capital in nature. Since the facts on record suggest that the conversion of bonds into shares never took place and the entire borrowed amount was repaid with redemption premium, keeping a contention of the counsel for the Revenue open this question is not considered.
|