2010 (1) TMI 1299 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for a company engaged in the business of manufacturing Hepatitis 'B' Vaccine, provision for gratuity and royalty to total income, and the disallowance of weighted deduction on clinical trials conducted outside the approved facility.

Issue 1: Disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB)

The Revenue contended that the business of bio-technology became eligible for claiming deduction u/s 35(2AB) from the assessment year 2002-03. The Departmental Representative argued that the company was not engaged in the manufacture of drugs or pharmaceuticals as the Hepatitis B Vaccine was made from a bio-technological organism. However, the CIT(A) justified the deduction u/s 35(2AB) based on the company's approval by the Drug Control Administration and the Ministry of Science & Technology. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the company's products fell under Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, making it eligible for the deduction u/s 35(2AB).

Issue 2: Provision for gratuity and royalty

The Revenue raised concerns regarding the addition of provision for gratuity and royalty to total income. Regarding the provision for gratuity, the Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Bombay High Court which held that since the provision was based on actuarial calculations, it was an ascertained liability and should not be added to the net profits. The Tribunal directed the assessing officer to exclude the portion of the gratuity provision based on actuarial calculations. As for royalty, it was acknowledged that there was no dispute in the treatment of royalty while computing the book profit.

Issue 3: Disallowance of weighted deduction on clinical trials

The Revenue contested the disallowance of weighted deduction on clinical trials conducted outside the approved facility. The Departmental Representative argued that expenses related to such trials should not be included in the cost of in-house research facility. The Appellate Tribunal, considering consistency, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on a previous ruling in the assessee's case for the assessment years 2003-04. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds in these appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the Revenue in some cases while dismissing others, based on the specific issues and arguments presented before the court.