TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount has been claimed u/s. 35(1) of the Act as deduction by the assessee while filing the revised return o f income. The pleading of the Ld. AR is that the actual expenditure which was not disputed by the Revenue and which is certified by the Ministry of Science and Technology may be allowed during the impugned assessment year without any weighted deduction deserves consideration. Thus since the amount certified by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India in Form-3CL amounting to Rs. 22.68 Lakhs corresponds with the claim made by the assessee while filing the return of income, we direct the Ld. AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee for in-house R D facility. Accordingly, these grounds raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of income with respect to deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act and issued notice u/s. 148 on 23/01/2009. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO rejected the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act apart from making disallowance for Donation and for non-compliance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. AO also added the difference of interest disclosed by the assessee thereby determining the assessed income at Rs. 4,14,52,484/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the submissions made by the assessee and relying on various judicial pronouncements, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirming the order of Ld. AO and ought to have at least allowed 100% deduction u/s. 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) as claimed by appellant. 4. Any other ground that the appellant may urge at the time of hearing. 3. Further, the assessee has also raised additional ground vide its petition dated 22/11/2016 which reads as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the expenditure incurred by the appellant towards the Research and Development is eligible for deduction u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act? 4. Grounds No. 1 3 relate to disallowance of entire weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Ld. AR is that the actual expenditure which was not disputed by the Revenue and which is certified by the Ministry of Science and Technology may be allowed during the impugned assessment year without any weighted deduction deserves consideration. We therefore are of the view that given the facts and circumstances of the case, since the amount certified by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India in Form-3CL amounting to Rs. 22.68 Lakhs corresponds with the claim made by the assessee while filing the return of income, we direct the Ld. AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee for in-house R D facility. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. Since, Grounds No. 1 3 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of both revenue and capital expenditure as provided u/s. 35(1)(i) and (iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) of the Act which does not provide for any such conditionality. Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO and ought to have at least allowed 100% deduction u/s. 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 54,24,406/- instead of the weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) as claimed by appellant. 3. Any other ground that the appellant may urge at the time of hearing. 10. Further, the assessee has also raised additional ground vide its petition dated 22/11/2016 which reads as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the expenditure incurred by the appellant towards the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
