Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 3 (3) , Hyderabad, Hyderabad

2016 (2) TMI 418 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Disallowance of deduction claimed under S.35(2AB) - disallowance on the ground as approval granted is by a Scientist of DSIR and not the Secretary - Held that:- It is observed that for claiming deduction under S.35(2AB), assessee has relied on two letters issued by Scientist G, referred to hereinabove. It is seen that one letter, as placed at page 13 of the paper-book, relates to Certificate of Registration for availing customs duty exemption. Second letter, placed at page 14 of the paper-book, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the report in prescribed form, of the prescribed authority, i.e. either Scientist G of DSIR or any other authority from DSIR, as required in S.35(2AB) of the Act, and redecide the matter in accordance with law, and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Disallowance made under S.36(1)(iii) out of bank in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds available with the assessee. Further, it is a fact on record that investments in equity shares have been made during the period from 8.10.2005 to 21.1.2007 and not in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute. The Department also has not controverted the contention of the assessee that no disallowance out of interest expenditure was made during the assessment year in which the investment was actually made. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we hold that the disal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dia, but the interest payments were also made to non-resident Indians outside India from a bank account held by the assessee outside India. Therefore, since no part of the transaction relating to payment of interest has taken place in India, it cannot be said that interest payment made to non-residents has accrued or arisen in India in terms of S.9 of the Act. In our view, therefore, the provisions of S.195 would not apply to such payments, thereby requiring the assessee to deduct tax at source. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the interest computed by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee - ITA No.1882/Hyd/2014 - Dated:- 23-12-2015 - B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao For The Respondent : Shri B.Kurmi Naidu ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member : This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 1.10.2014 of learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) II, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Assessee has ra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2009 declaring total income of ₹ 2,36,81,080. During the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer on verification of the return of income and accompanying statements, found that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction of ₹ 1,77,03,533 under S.35(2AB) of the Act for expenditure incurred on scientific research. The Assessing Officer noticing the same, called upon the assessee s explanation justifying its claim of deduction by furnishing necessary details such as approval of compe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee is required to make application in Form No.3CK to the prescribed authority, i.e. DSIR and the prescribed authority has to grant approval in Form No.3CM and also submit a report in respect of approval granted for in-house research and development facility in Form No.3CL to the Director General (Income-tax Exemptions). The Assessing Officer opined that as the assessee could not furnish the approval of the prescribed authority in Form No.3CM, it is not entitled to claim deduction under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

expenditure could be allowed under S.35(1)(i) or S.35(1)(iv) of the Act. 6. The learned counsel submitted before us that the only reason the departmental authorities disallowed assessee s claim for weighted deduction under S.35(2AB) is because approval granted is by a Scientist of DSIR and not the Secretary. He submitted that the recognition of assessee s in-house R&D unit has been renewed by the DSIR till 31.3.2015. In this context, he referred to two letters issued by Scientist- G of DSIR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deduction. In this context, he relied upon the following two decisions- (a) ACIT V/s. Ferment Biotech Ltd. (2014)45 Taxmann 329 (Trib-Mum) (b) Teja Networks Limited (60 taxmann.com.309) (Kar. HC) 7. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relying upon the observations of the departmental authorities submitted that since the assessee has failed to obtain the approval in the prescribed manner form the competent authority, it is not eligible to calim deduction under S.35(2AB). 8. W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e prescribed manner, i.e. Form No.3CM is obtained from the competent authority. Therefore, the approval in Form 3CM, even if it is issued by any Scientist of DSIR would, in our view, entitle the assessee to claim deduction under S.35S(2AB). 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provision, we have to examine the facts of the present case. It is observed that for claiming deduction under S.35(2AB), assessee has relied on two letters issued by Scientist G, referred to hereinabove. It is seen t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ewal of recognition of In-House R&D unit or certificate granted for customs duty exemption, assessee would not be entitled to claim deduction under S.35(2AB). 10. As for the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, on a careful analysis of the same, it is seen that in the case of ACIT V/s. Ferment Bio-tech Ltd. (supra), the ITAT Mumbai Bench taking into consideration the fact that the assessee had only furnished a letter issued by Scientist-G towards renewal of recognit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

verify whether the approval in the prescribed form has been obtained from DSIR, even if it is signed for such authority by any other officer, like Scientist-G for the Assessment year under consideration. Even applying the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, to the facts of the present case, the assessee must obtain approval from the DSIR in the prescribed form. In the present case, admittedly, assessee has not furnished approval of the prescribed authority in Form 3CM. 11. In the case of Teja Ne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or before us, the assessee has submitted the report either in Form 3CM or in Form 3CL. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish the report in prescribed form, of the prescribed authority, i.e. either Scientist G of DSIR or any other authority from DSIR, as required in S.35(2AB) of the Act, and redecide the matter in accordance with law, and after giving reasona .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vivimed Holdings Ltd., dividend income from which is exempt from tax. Assessee during the relevant previous year has claimed deduction towards bank interest and financial charges for an amount of ₹ 9,57,01,000. The Assessing Officer further noticed that secured and unsecured loans shown by the assessee are ₹ 96,14,40,000 and ₹ 76,70,15,000 respectively. After examining the details in respect of investment in equity shares of the two companies, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stments made in equity shares was out of commercial expediency. Relying upon certain judicial precedents, he worked out the proportionate disallowance from bank interest and financial charges, and made a disallowance of ₹ 17,85,000. 15. Being aggrieved of such disallowance, assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), upon considering the submission of the assessee that investment in equity shares was from out of internal accruals and not from borrowed funds, did not find me .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made in the assessment year in which investments were actually made, no disallowance out of interest expenditure could be made in the year under appeal. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions- (a) Ambience properties Ltd. Hyderabad V/s. Dy. CIT(2014-TIOL-ITAT-HYD) (b) CIT V/s. Bharti Televenture Ltd. (2011-TIOL-51-HCDEL- IT) (c) S.A. Builders ltd. V/s. CIT(2007)158 Taxman 74(SC) 17. The Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand, relied upon the finding .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessing Officer accepted the payments made through Axis Bank as from internal accruals of the company. Further, the financial statement submitted by the assessee also demonstrates that sufficient interest free fund was available with the assessee to make the investment in equity shares of the two companies. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) has held that when the assessee has mixed funds, i.e. both interest free .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Department also has not controverted the contention of the assessee that no disallowance out of interest expenditure was made during the assessment year in which the investment was actually made. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we hold that the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to ₹ 17,85,00 is not sustainable. Accordingly, we delete the same, allowing the grounds of the assessee on this issue. 19. In ground No.12, assessee has challenged the direction of the CIT(A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

either furnished the details of payment, nor could produce the receipt of donation issued by the TTD directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction, if the assessee is able to produce the exemption certificate. 22. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record, we do not find any infirmity in the directions of the CIT(A). Since the assessee has not furnished the necessary proof with regard to the claim of deduction, the learned CIT(A), in our view, is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oreign Currency Convertible Bonds, amounting to ₹ 86,88,000. Noticing that the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the interest paid on FCCBs in terms of S.195 of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of ₹ 86,88,000, invoking provisions of S.40(a)(ia). 25. Being aggrieved , the assessee challenged the disallowance before the first appellate authority, who has sustained the disallowance made, by upholding the view of the Assessing Officer. 26. The learned counsel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n), Ahmedabad V/s. Adani Enterprises (2015 ) 63 taxmann.com.11 (Ahmedad-Trib) (b) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Incometax (2012) 24 taxmann.com.267 (Mumbai) 27. The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the findings of the departmental authorities. 28. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the assessee has raised long term bonds from the international market by issuing FCCBs of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

seen that the only reason on which the departmental authorities disallowed the expenditure is, assessee has not deducted tax at source in terms of S.195 of the Act. However, it is well settled principle of law that if the payments on which tax is sought to be deducted is not chargeable to tax in India, provisions of S.195 would not apply. In the present case, it is not controverted by the Learned Departmental Representative with cogent evidence that not only the bonds were raised outside India, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version