TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 890X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered and adjudicated in the first appeal and the matter is pending before the Hon ble High Court. Whatever, the findings will be given by the Hon ble High Court that will apply to the case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. There cannot be allowed two parallel proceedings running, one in the High Court and the other Tribunal on the same issue and relating to the same assessment year. This appeal of the Revenue, in view of this, is hereby dismissed subject to our observation that the finding arrived at in appeal before the High Court on this issue will accordingly apply to the case of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration. Allocation of the expenditure relating to the R D unit to the other u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleting the disallowance of Rs.58,70,63,515/- made on account of Freebie paid to doctors, despite the facts that the decision of the Hon ble ITAT on this issue in assessee s case in respect of AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, has not accepted by the Revenue and an appeal is pending before the Hon ble Bombay High Court. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 3. The appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A)-48, Mumbai may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an assessment in the case of the assessee was carried out u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shot th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue and thus, the Revenue is in this appeal before us. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the record. It has been time and again held by the various High Courts that if no incriminating material is found during the search action, the addition in the case of already concluded assessment cannot be made while framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Reliance in this respect can be placed in the case of CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation ITA No. 523 of 2013 reported in (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (Bombay) and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 234 Taxman 300 (Delhi). The aforesaid decisions have been further affirmed by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No. 7770/MUM/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 8. Now coming to the appeal of the assessee. The assessee in this appeal raising following ground: 1. The authorities below have erred in law as well as facts in apportioning/upholding the apportionment of Research Development expenses u/s 35(2AB) to various units of the appellant including the units eligible for deduction u/2 80IB and 80IC. 9. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is relating to the allocation of the expenditure relating to the R D unit to the other units which are exempt u/s 80IC of the Income Tax Act. 9.1 At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee produced on record the copy of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions in support of his contention that R D expenditure incurred in head office cannot be allocated to the units. We observe from the Assessment Order that the Assessing Officer predominantly stating that R D expenditure incurred by the assessee is inextricably linked with the business of the assessee including the business relating to products which are manufactured in the units for which deduction u/s. 80IB and 80IC were claimed. However, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the R D expenditure incurred by the assessee benefitted the existing units where claims u/s. 80IB and ITA.NO. 7167/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 80IC were made. We observe that when the details of products manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered in favour of the assessee in the own case of the assessee for the earlier assessment year, wherein, the Tribunal, after considering the relevant facts, has held that the expenditure incurred in research and development activity at R D Unit cannot be allocated to the other manufacturing units. No distinguishing facts have been brought on record. In view of this, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for earlier assessment year in the own case of the assessee, this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the assessee. No other ground or issue raised or argued. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly stands allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
