9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the order dated 10.1.2017 in ITA No.257/Coch/2015 of ITAT Cochin Bench. The issues canvassed relate to the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. Substantial Question No.1 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of Section 32(1)(iia) read with the second proviso, is the Hon'ble ITAT right in law in holding that the left over additional depreciation brought forward from immediately preceding assessment year has to be allowed in the subsequent assessment year and is nto the above finding against law and perverse? 3. The identical issue in the case of assessee herein has already been considered by this Court in ITA No.87 of 2014 and decided in favour of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the assessee. Substantial question No.2 Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case is the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) in respect of the salary paid on outdoor R & D facility without qualification of the DSIR and that too following conflicting case laws. 5. The assessee was served draft assessment order dated 28.3.2014 under Section 144C of the Act. Objection-10 deals with the claim of deduction under Section 35 (2AB) which enables weighted deduction for incurring the expenditure with reference to such research and development stated to have been undertaken by the assessee. The assessee states that the amount claimed towards expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the question as follows: "In the present appeal we are concerned with the amount of Rs.3.89 crores. The assessee submitted during the course of assessment proceedings that the said amount represents reimbursement of salary and other costs as incurred towards employees. It was further submitted that one of the employee, Mr.Peter Becker is employed on the rolls of Apollo Tyres, Germany, a subsidiary of Apollo Tyre Limited but he is overall incharge of the R & D activities of the company in India and devotes substantial time to the R & D activities carried out by the company at is R & D Unit at Limda, Baroda. It was argued that the salary paid to Mr.Peter Becker in respect of the services rendered by him in respect of company's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The deduction is therefore within the parameters of Section 35(2AB) of the Act. In view thereof, Ground No.3 raised by the department is dismissed." 8. The said finding is assailed by the revenue. The question refers to salary paid at an outdoor R&D facility and the payment is without qualification of the DSIR. The case law cited is not followed both by the DRP and the Tribunal while accepting the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of 50% on the salary paid to Mr.Peter Becker. The question does not refer to the circumstances considered and accepted by the DRP while appreciating the claim of expenditure to accept the salary paid by the assessee company to Mr.Peter Becker, an employee of subsidiary of the assessee as an allowable expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
