9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB and the distinction between research and development activities and advisory services.
Disallowed Deduction u/s 80IB: The assessee, a company engaged in advisory/service activities in pharmaceutical and healthcare products, claimed deduction u/s 80IB. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, stating that the company was not involved in scientific research and development activities but in service-oriented activities. The AO also questioned the certificate issued by the prescribed authority, which approved the project subject to certain provisions. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the prescribed authority had certified the company as a scientific research and development company. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO cannot challenge the approval given by the prescribed authority and directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80IB if the company satisfies other conditions. Distinction between Research and Advisory Services: The CIT(A) upheld the distinction made by the AO between research and development activities and advisory services. The Tribunal, however, considered the letter from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which clarified that the development of drug formulation is considered research, even if done under a contract. The Tribunal emphasized that the prescribed authority's approval is crucial, and the AO cannot disregard it without valid reasons. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the company should be granted the deduction u/s 80IB if it meets the necessary conditions. This judgment highlights the importance of the prescribed authority's certification for claiming deductions u/s 80IB and emphasizes that the AO cannot challenge such certification without valid reasons.
|
