2012 (11) TMI 498 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IB(8A) - AO argued that assessee sold services that was output of its research to the pharmaceutical companies without prior permission of the prescribed authority - Violation of Rule 18DA(2)(a) Held that - As per Rule 18DA if at any stage it is found that any provisions of the Act or the rules have been violated the prescribed authority specified may withdraw the approval so granted. The authority has not withdrawn the approval of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration but has further granted the extension of the approval for a further period of three years. AO himself in the subsequent year i.e. 2009-10 in the order passed u/s 143(3) has discussed at length Sec. 80IB(8A) & Rule 18DA(1) and has finally concluded that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(8A). Appeal decides in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IB(8A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the assessee violated Rule 18DA(2)(a) of the Income-tax Rules by selling services without prior permission.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Revenue contended that the assessee, engaged in scientific research and development, did not comply with conditions specified under Section 80IB(8A) of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue argued that since the assessee sold services to pharmaceutical companies without prior permission, the deduction claimed under Section 80IB(8A) was rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue sought to reverse the decision of the learned CIT(A) who allowed the deduction.

The assessee's counsel argued that the services provided did not involve selling prototypes or outputs, as prohibited by Rule 18DA(2)(a). The counsel highlighted that the assessee was approved by the prescribed authority and had not violated any rules. The counsel pointed out that the Assessing Officer in a subsequent year granted approval under Section 80IB, indicating no violation of Rule 18DA(2).

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the assessee met the requirements under Section 80IB(8A) as a company engaged in scientific research and development, registered in India, and approved by the prescribed authority. The only dispute was the alleged violation of Rule 18DA(2)(a) by selling services without permission. However, the Tribunal noted that the prescribed authority did not withdraw approval despite the alleged violation. The Tribunal also cited the Assessing Officer's approval in a subsequent year, confirming the assessee's eligibility for deduction. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(8A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IB(8A) based on compliance with the prescribed conditions, despite the Revenue's argument regarding the violation of Rule 18DA(2)(a) in selling services without prior permission.