TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee made wrong disallowance in the original return of income as well as revised return of income and prayed to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh consideration. The ld. DR reported no objection for its fresh verification. We find force in the submissions of ld. AR that the issue raised regarding disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A is requires fresh verification. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and submissions of ld. AR and ld. DR, we remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any in support of its claim. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA Nos.1803 & 1804/PUN/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, the DSIR has given approval up to an extent of ₹ 2,79,81,000/- and assessee is entitled for deduction at the rate of 200% to an extent of ₹ 5,59,62,000/- and on remaining amount ₹ 1,28,26,762/- (₹ 6,87,88,762/- - ₹ 5,59,62,000/-) disallowed @ 100% to an extent of ₹ 64,13,344/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same. The contention of ld. AR is that the Rule 6(7A)(b) came into effect from 01-07-2016 wherein under sub-rule (ii) of (b) of (7A) requires the assessee to quantify the expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility. He submits that since the assessment year under consideration is 2011-12 the (ii) of (b)(7A) of Rule 6 is not applicable. He brought to our notice on si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is deleted. Thus, ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. Ground No. 3 is general in nature, hence, requires no adjudication. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1803/PUN/2017 is partly allowed. ITA No. 1804/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 9. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute ground No. 3 and prayed to dismiss the same as not pressed. Accordingly, the ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 10. Ground No. 1 is relating to disallowance made u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act @ 100% in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee claimed weighted deduction @ 200% on & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note that the assessee made disallowance of ₹ 44,997/- under Rule 8D (2)(iii) of Rules on its own. According to Assessing Officer in the revised return of income, the assessee increased said disallowance its shown to an extent of ₹ 1,46,262/- and he accepted the same. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. Before us, the contention of ld. AR is that the assessee need not disallow any expenditure in earning exempt income under law. By inadvertent mistake the assessee made wrong disallowance in the original return of income as well as revised return of income and prayed to remand the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh consideration. The ld. DR reported no objection for its fresh verification. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
