9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 819 - AT - Income TaxWeighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) - incurring expenditure on scientific research development in relation to drugs and pharmaceuticals - exclusion of professional fee and gardening expenses - HELD THAT - We find that the assessee has included a sum of Rs.51.26 lakhs as eligible expenditure being Revenue expenditure relating to building and another sum of Rs.133.92 lakhs being revenue expenditure other than building, which was considered as revenue by the assessing officer himself. These items clearly are within the purview of allowable u/s 35(2AB) of the Act as weighted deduction. The security expenses are also directly related to in-house research as proper security is required to avoid leakage and only in-house staff will have assessed to building. Accordingly, this expenditure are for preserving the research which is completed and its clinical trial is pending. As regards to the environmental issue, the assessee-company has set up an affluent plant and as is widely accepted the vegetation, i.e. trees have contained the pollution. This expenditure of gardening and plantation have been done for the perseverance of environment and this is directly related to R D facilities. As regards to salary paid to Dr. C.Dutt amounting to Rs.58.54 lakhs, he is in-charge of R D Centre at Bhatt. He is the person through whom all co-ordination of technical scientists and other technical persons are carried out. The entire reporting of the research activity to the management has been taken to the Board of Directors through him only and for this the salary is paid. Accordingly, the assessee has rightly paid the entire expenditure of Rs.133.92 lakhs and building repairs Rs.37.55 lakhas on which weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act is allowable. Thus, we allow the claim of the assessee and this issue of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and that of the assessee's CO is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition related to selling, publicity, and medical literature expenses. 2. Exclusion of specific expenses for the computation of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act. 3. Deletion of addition related to transactions with M/s. Baldevbhai Dosabhai Cotton Co. 4. Deletion of addition related to transactions with Vimal Chemicals. 5. Deletion of addition related to provision for leave encashment. 6. Computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. 7. Deletion of capital loss on the sale of land. 8. Allowance of MAT credit before computing interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition Related to Selling, Publicity, and Medical Literature Expenses: The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 19,53,66,470/- made by the CIT(A) on account of selling, publicity, and medical literature expenses. The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee, and the facts remained identical. 2. Exclusion of Specific Expenses for the Computation of Deduction under Section 35(2AB): The Tribunal addressed the exclusion of Rs. 48 lakhs for professional fees and Rs. 6.93 lakhs (corrected to Rs. 9.44 lakhs) for gardening expenses from the total deduction under Section 35(2AB). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude these expenses, as they were not related to research activity, while allowing the balance deduction. 3. Deletion of Addition Related to Transactions with M/s. Baldevbhai Dosabhai Cotton Co.: The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 40,39,306/- added by the Assessing Officer for transactions with M/s. Baldevbhai Dosabhai Cotton Co. The Tribunal found that similar issues in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee. 4. Deletion of Addition Related to Transactions with Vimal Chemicals: The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 9.69 lakhs added by the Assessing Officer for transactions with Vimal Chemicals. The Tribunal noted that similar issues in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee. 5. Deletion of Addition Related to Provision for Leave Encashment: The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 133.68 lakhs added by the Assessing Officer for the provision for leave encashment. The Tribunal noted that the change in the method of accounting for leave encashment was bona fide and necessary to comply with accounting standards. 6. Computation of Deduction under Section 80HHC: The Tribunal addressed multiple sub-issues under this heading: - Treatment of DEPB Income: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction excluding only the net profit from DEPB income, following the decision in Topman Exports v. ITO. - Exclusion of Excise Duty from Total Turnover: The Tribunal held that excise duty should be excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC, following the decision in CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine Works. - Net Interest and Laboratory Charges: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider net interest and net laboratory charges for the computation of deduction under Section 80HHC, following the decision in CIT v. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip. 7. Deletion of Capital Loss on the Sale of Land: The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 7,34,051/- added by the Assessing Officer for capital loss on the sale of land. The Tribunal held that the indexation should be done from the date the land was acquired by the amalgamating company, Torrent Medi System Pvt. Ltd., in the financial year 1988-89. 8. Allowance of MAT Credit Before Computing Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The Tribunal confirmed that MAT credit should be allowed before computing interest under Sections 234B and 234C, following the decision in CIT v. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the intention of the Legislature was to give tax credit to tax and not to tax and interest. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment comprehensively addressed each issue, confirming the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee for most issues, while providing specific directions for re-computation where necessary. The judgment relied heavily on precedents from previous years and higher courts to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the law.
|
