9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 422 - AT - Income TaxWeighted deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) pertaining to contract labour expenditure, professional fees and GET salary - HELD THAT - Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Claries Lifescience Ltd 2008 (8) TMI 579 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has clearly held that once facility is approved, the entire expenditures so incurred in development of R D facility has to be allowed for weighted deduction as provided by Section 35(2AB) Since the approval is granted during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the entire expenditure incurred under section 35(2AB) of the Act by the assessee. Domestic travel expenses u/s .35(2AB) - HELD THAT - AO had not made any disallowance regarding this claim and first time the claim was made before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it proper to remit the issue back to the AO for considering the same in accordance with law. In view of the above, ground no.2 is allowed for statistical purposes. Excise duty refund as derived from the business of industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction u/s 80IB - HELD THAT - Once the excise duty refunds has been held to be arising from manufacturing activity and is included in the profits eligible to be exempt u/.80IB of the Act, the grievance of the assessee that such receipts should have been treated as capital receipt is contradictory as by including in the P L account and allowing the benefit under s.80IB of the Act such refunds have already been held to be revenue in nature. An item of receipt can be treated as revenue as capital depending upon its nature. The same item cannot be said to be both revenue as well as capital in nature. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has made a finding of fact that interest free funds during the year had increased from the earlier year and such funds were much more than interest free advances and CWIP investments were for the purpose of business. The learned CIT(A) has therefore rightly deleted the addition
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB). 2. Deduction of domestic travel expenses under Section 35(2AB). 3. Disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI. 4. Treatment of excise duty refund as capital receipt or eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. 5. Upward adjustment made by the TPO. 6. Capitalization of interest towards CWIP under Section 36(1)(iii). 7. Allowance of forex gain while calculating deduction under Section 80IB. Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Weighted Deduction Claimed Under Section 35(2AB): The assessee's appeal contested the disallowance of ?22,32,326 claimed under Section 35(2AB) for contract labor, professional fees, and GET salary. The Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Claries Lifescience Ltd. (326 ITR 251), stating that once the in-house R&D facility is approved by DSIR, the entire expenditure should be allowed for weighted deduction. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) and AO's reliance on DSIR's exclusion of certain expenses and allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground. 2. Deduction of Domestic Travel Expenses Under Section 35(2AB): The assessee claimed ?10,71,019 for domestic travel expenses under Section 35(2AB). The AO did not disallow this claim, but the CIT(A) did not adjudicate it. The Tribunal remanded this issue back to the AO for consideration in accordance with the law, allowing it for statistical purposes. 3. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to ESI: The assessee's appeal on the disallowance of ?37,982 for employees' contribution to ESI was dismissed as the payment was not made within the prescribed time limit, and the assessee did not press this ground. 4. Treatment of Excise Duty Refund: The CIT(A) treated the excise duty refund as derived from the business of the industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction under Section 80IB. This was consistent with the Tribunal's earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11. The Tribunal upheld this treatment, dismissing the additional grounds raised by the assessee to treat the excise duty refund as a capital receipt. 5. Upward Adjustment Made by TPO: The Revenue's appeal contested the deletion of the upward adjustment made by the TPO. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed earlier orders for AY 2008-09 to 2010-11, where similar adjustments were deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following judicial precedent. 6. Capitalization of Interest Towards CWIP Under Section 36(1)(iii): The CIT(A) found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the CWIP investments, and these investments were for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. 7. Allowance of Forex Gain While Calculating Deduction Under Section 80IB: The CIT(A) allowed the forex gain while calculating the deduction under Section 80IB, following the decision for AY 2008-09. The Tribunal upheld this decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals regarding the disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) and remanded the issue of domestic travel expenses for reconsideration. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on all grounds, including the upward adjustment by TPO, capitalization of interest towards CWIP, and allowance of forex gain under Section 80IB. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were partly allowed, with some grounds dismissed as infructuous.
|
