2016 (11) TMI 377 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of research & development expense - Held that - The copies of transportation vouchers were also submitted before us to show that all these evidences were brought before the AO evidencing transportation of saplings and other related material. Nothing has been brought on record by the lower authorities to reject these evidences. No further query was raised in this regard by the lower authorities which was left to be addressed by the assessee. We find that the disallowance has been made without brining any cogent material on record to reject the details and evidences submitted by the assessee. The disallowance cannot be made only on the ground that results of the research were not shown by the assessee during the year under consideration. The benefit of research may or may not yield in the year under consideration. But, that would not determine allowability of the expenses or otherwise. Thus, taking into account totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the action of lower authorities in disallowing these expenses was not justified and therefore, same is reversed and AO is directed to allow the claim - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A) regarding disallowance of research & development expenses and other expenses for A.Y. 2001-02.

Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Research & Development Expenses:
The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure on scientific research. The Tribunal had earlier set aside the issue to the AO to consider evidences related to infrastructure for research work. The AO repeated the disallowance citing provisions of section 35 of the Act. The assessee contended that the expenses were incurred for research related to its business, allowable under section 35(1), and that the AO had exceeded the Tribunal's directions. Ld. CIT(A) observed that the company lacked necessary infrastructure for scientific research and the expenses were akin to a loan to a sister concern, not eligible under section 35(1). The Tribunal, after reviewing submissions and evidences, found that the lower authorities had not objectively considered the details provided. It noted that the expenses were genuine and related to the business of perfumery compounds. The disallowance was deemed unjustified as no cogent material was presented to reject the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of &8377; 16,61,674.

2. Disallowance of Other Expenses:
The addition made on account of travelling and other expenses was deleted by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee had submitted detailed explanations and evidences during the appeal, emphasizing that the expenses were genuine and directly related to the business activities. Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the assessee's submissions, but the Tribunal, upon thorough review, found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the evidence presented. The Tribunal noted that the expenses were supported by relevant documents and were incurred in the normal course of business. Consequently, the disallowance of these expenses was reversed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the AO to allow the claim of research & development expenses and other expenses. The judgment emphasized the importance of objectively considering the evidence provided by the assessee and ensuring that disallowances are based on valid grounds supported by cogent material.