TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aking the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in upholding the assessment made by the AO in case of expenses relating to research and development u/s 35(2AB) amounting to ₹ 3,83,62,003/- and correspondingly disallowing the claim. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L, holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction of 150%, u/s 35 (2AB) of the Act on the expenses claimed. 3. The learned CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, upheld the disallowance. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter alia, that the financial period involved was from 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, whereas the application for recognition of in-house R D facility was made only on 10.1.2005, i.e., at the fag end of the financial year; that as admitted by the assessee itself vide its letter dated 13.1.2009, the prescribed Form No. 3 CL had not been issued by the Department of Science; that CIT v. Claris Lifesciences L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upposes incurring the expenditure in this behalf, application to the prescribed Authority, who, after following the proper procedure, will approve the facility, or otherwise, and the assessee will be entitled to weighted deduction of any and all expenditure so incurred. 9. This decision, in our considered opinion, has wrongly been distinguished by the ld. CIT(A). It does not matter that in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
