Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 2014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTBenefit of deduction u/s 35(2AB) - approval for the R & D activities were given in the subsequent assessment years and not for assessment year under consideration - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee own case [2019 (2) TMI 535 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT l 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. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 579 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the decision of Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2011 (2) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT] We are informed that the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (Supra) was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court and the SLP came to be dismissed by an order dated [2012 (1) TMI 408 - SC ORDER] 09th January, 2012. This question is therefore not entertained. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) being employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI - same were not deposited in the respective fund within the stipulated time - We notice that similar questions came up for consideration before this Court in Income Tax Appeal [2013 (2) TMI 922 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ](L) No. 2111 of 2012 in case of this very assessee where by order while dismissing the Revenue's Appeal, these questions came up for consideration. These questions in the present appeal, therefore are not entertained. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest on loans borrowed for advancing to its subsidiary companies in India and Overseas - HELD THAT:- We notice that the Tribunal has held that the assessee had sufficient own interest free funds and therefore, the disallowance was not justified. Deduction u/s 80HHC - whether the additional proceeds of export sales due to foreign exchange rate fluctuation would also qualify for deduction under Section 80HHC? - The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the said amount cannot be said to have arisen out of the assessee's export business. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal, however, reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer holding that the amount in question was part of the assessee's export sales proceeds. This issue is considered by this Court on earlier occasions in cases of CIT Vs. Amber Exports (India) [2009 (2) TMI 427 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd [2010 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
|