TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [ 2017 (8) TMI 248 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd [ 2011 (2) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and Claris Life Sciences [ 2008 (8) TMI 579 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] There is no justification with the Revenue to support the findings of Ld. AO that assessee has failed to justify its claim on account of above mentioned expenses and failed to produce copy of any ledger account of the said expenses etc. while assessee in its submission as reproduced in the order of ld. CIT given the submissions along with details / ledger of R D expenditure - Thus, the bench is inclined to accept the findings of Ld. CIT(A) on facts also that before it the assessee had justified the expenses on the basis of ledger accounts etc. There is no error in the findings of Ld. CIT(A) requiring interference. Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 5813/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2023 - SH. N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Sh. K.M.Gupta, Adv. Sh. Rohit Tiwari , Adv. Ms. Tanya , Adv For the Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM : The appeal has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee dated 22nd March, 2016: The details of expenses claimed by the assessee under section 35(2AB') of the Act were certified by the Statutory Auditor in Appendix IV of the Tax Audit Report of the company. A copy of Appendix IV is enclosed as Annexure 9 which clearly captures all the computation and details of expenses claimed under section 35(2AB'] of the Act bifurcating the same in capital as well as revenue expenditure. The amount of expenditure on capital assets related to R D were claimed as deduction (as certified in Auditor s Certificate) and the same has not been capitalized in books and no depreciation has been claimed on the same by the assessee. The assessee company also submitted that the R D facility of the assessee based at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan is registered and recognized as eligible R D facility by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). I this regard, a recognition certificate issued by DSIR is enclosed as Annexure 2 for perusal of your goodself. Further a tax certificate issued under section 35(2AB) of the Act is enclosed as Annexure 3 for perusal of your goodself. 2.4 The Ld AO observed and held; The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis of following relevant findings in para 5.3 to 5.7 as follows :- 5.3 I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the appellant. It is clear that section 35(2AB) of the Act does not specify a cut-off date from when an assessee may be considered to be eligible to claim weighted deduction. What is stated is that the in-house R D facility should be approved by the DSIR. On perusal of Form 3CM submitted before me by the Appellant as Annexure 6 to paperbook dated 19 February, 2018, it is noted that the Appellant s in-house R D facility is approved by the DSIR with effect from 16 March, 2012. However, whether weighed deduction in accordance with section 35(2AB) shall be allowed having regard to this cut-off date is a separate question. 5.4 I have perused the facts and submissions made by the Appellant and the available jurisprudence on the subject matter. It is noted that the issue at hand has been dealt with by the jurisdictional Hon ble Delhi High Court in the cases of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Union of India [2017] 84 taxmann.com 45 and Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2012] 22 taxmann.com 19, as also by other Hon ble Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due date which has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs AIMIL Limited (2010) 321ITR 508 (DEL.) 5. The assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :- 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing weighted deduction of Rs. 4,56,18,231/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act') claimed by the ,assessee in respect of R D expenses for the F Y 2011-12 relevant to A Y 2012-13, ignoring the fact the Research Development facility of the assessee is approved by DSIR for the purposes of the section for the period 16.03.2012 to 31.03.2014 and the letter of approval issued by the DSIR categorically specifies that for F Y 2011-12 the R D Expenditure incurred from 16.03.2012 to 31.03.2012 would only be eligible for deduction. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in relying on the proposition laid down in the cases of CIT vs Claris Life Sciences Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 251 and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs UOI [2017] 84 taxmann.com 45 in holding that the cut-off date mentioned in the approval by the DSIR is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that all material evidence was produced before Ld. AO which have been taken into consideration by Ld. CIT(A) also.8. 9. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record, at the outset, it will be relevant take into account the judgment of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s.PCP Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) wherein the facts were that the para 2 of the order mentions that ROI for 2010-11 was filed and same as matter of assessment. The competent authority in Form 3CM approved assessee s R D facility for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2013 on the basis of application filed by the assessee in prescribed Form 3CK on 12.08.2011. While the assessee n that case was claiming deduction for the AY 2009-10, relevant to assessment year 2010-11 but the approval from 01/04/2011 to 31/3/13 was for relevant AY 2012-13 onwards. 10. However, in the case in hand there is no dispute to the fact that the assessee company has applied for approval of in-house R D facility u/s 35(2AB) on 29th March, 2012 and the facility was approved in the Form 3CM from 16.03.2012 to 31.03.2014. Thus, before the end of financial year 2011-12 on 31/12/2012, the application was filed. The bench is of cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
