TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their manufacturing unit at Himachal Pradesh. In order to draw presumption that Himachal Pradesh unit does not have availed the benefit of the research and development done by the Hosur Unit, no material whatsoever has been placed by the appellant/assessee, before the assessing officer. It is not the case of the assessee that the unit at Himachal Pradesh is having it's own Research and Development Unit. Considered opinion of this Court is that the Assessing Officer as well as CTI (Appeals) and the ITAT, had thoroughly gone into the factual aspects and legal position and rightly arrived at the conclusion as to the plea made by the appellant. In sum and substance, the findings rendered by the authorities are concurrent in nature an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant / assessee had claimed weighted deduction at the rate of 200% amounting to ₹ 7,78,74,366/- towards Research and Development expenditure Under Section 35(AB)(2) of the IT Act 1961, and the said deduction pertains to income from Hosur Unit, which carries out Research and Development works. 2.2. The Assessing Officer found that benefit of the Research and Development done by the Hosur Unit is utilised by the other manufacturing Unit of Himachal Pradesh also and computed the taxable income of the Assessee as follows, vide assessment order dated 29.03.2016. (Rs.) I Income from Business 11,23,48,278/- II Income from other sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome from the units of Hosur, Pune, Bangalore only. The ITAT also found that the benefits of the Research done by the Hosur unit is availed by all the units of the assessee and consequently, the Research and Development expenditure has to be apportioned and having taken note of the concurrent findings recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), held that it is not the fit case to interfere with the same and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Assessee, aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by ITAT, has filed the present appeal. 3. The Appeal was admitted by this Court on 03.12.2018 and while admitting, the following substantial questions of law were formulated. 1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumption and acted on conjectures and surmises. 4.3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following decisions. 1) (2004) 192 CTR 0165 : (2005) 273 ITR 0152 (Bush Boake Allen (India Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) (Division Bench of High Court of Madras) 2) (2007) 161 Taxman 0047 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Brakes India Ltd) (Division Bench of High Court of Madras) 3) (2013) 259 CTR 0253 : (2013) 350 ITR 0366 (Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) (Division Bench of High Court of Bombay). Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee pleads for interference by answering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in this appeal and prays for dismissal of the same. 6. This Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance upon two decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court. 7.1. In the case of Bush Boake Allen India Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Division Bench of High Court of Madras)[(2005) 273 ITR 0152], it was observed that a presumption was made by the Assessing Officer that any technology about new flavours and essence will automatically be utilized in Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered opinion of this Court, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee are distinguishable on facts. It is not in dispute that the appellant is having it's registered office at Chennai and manufacturing units at Hosur, Pune, Bangalore and Himachal Pradesh, for manufacture seats and parts of seats for automobile application. A perusal of Form 3CL dated 14.08.2015 appended to the typed set of documents, does not throw any light (or) supportive of the case of the appellant / assessee that the benefits of the research and development done by the Hosur unit having been availed by their manufacturing unit at Himachal Pradesh. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, in order to draw presum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
