Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 535 - HC - Income TaxClaim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) - as evident from the approval letters that the approval for the R&D activities were given in the subsequent Assessment Years and not for the assessment year under consideration - Held that:- We notice that several High Courts have held that such research and development activity once approved by the competent authority, the approval would relate back to the date of application. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES LTD. [2008 (8) TMI 579 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal would show that in addition to relying on the conclusion in case of this very assessee in earlier assessment year, the Tribunal further noted that during the year under consideration, no fresh investments were made by the assessee except for a small investment of ₹ 2.52 lakhs. Such being the fact, we do not see any error in the view of the Tribunal. This question is therefore not entertained. Deduction disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - whether should be allowed u/s 57(iii) of the I.T. Act when the primary motive of the assessee company is not earning income from other source? - Held that:- As he assessee had objected to the Revenue's proposal for disallowance of expenditure on the ground that there were sufficient interest free funds available with the assessee from which the investment was made. The assessee had raised an alternative contention that in any case the dividend to be received from such investment, was taxable and, therefore, the expenditure under Section 57(iii) of the Act should be granted. It is this alternative contention which the CIT(A) and the Tribunal finally accepted. The undisputed fact is that the dividend income at the hands of the assessee would be taxed. We, therefore, do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal except assessee's contention. This question is therefore not entertained.
|