9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act. 3. Treatment of capital expenditure as revenue expenditure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961: The primary issue in ITA Nos. 4517/Del/2005 and 4518/Del/2005 was whether the assessee company, M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd., was entitled to deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2002-03. The Revenue argued that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not the company, thus the company was not entitled to the deductions. The AO contended that the patents were the property of Shri Rakesh Goel and not the company, and therefore, the company was not entitled to the deduction under Section 80-O. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, finding that the patents and designs were developed by the company under an agreement with Analog Device Inc. (ADI) and that Shri Rakesh Goel, as the managing director and scientist, was employed by the company. The CIT(A) observed that the company was the beneficial owner of the patents and designs, and all conditions for the claim of deduction under Section 80-O were fulfilled. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the patents developed by Shri Rakesh Goel were for and on behalf of the company, and the company was the beneficial owner of the patents. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)'s findings and confirmed that the company was entitled to the deductions under Section 80-O. 2. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act: In C.O. No. 64/Del/2006, the assessee objected to the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the IT Act for the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee argued that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and not on any new material, which did not empower the AO to reopen the completed assessment. The Tribunal noted that the issue of deduction under Section 80-O had already been decided on merits in favor of the assessee, rendering the technical ground regarding the validity of reopening infructuous. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was disposed of as infructuous. 3. Treatment of Capital Expenditure as Revenue Expenditure: In ITA No. 1700/Del/2005, the issue was whether the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 should be treated as revenue expenditure. The AO had disallowed 92% of the expenditure, treating it as capital expenditure, while the CIT(A) allowed the claim of expenses, treating the company as an R&D entity engaged in research and development activities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee was an R&D company and the expenditures incurred were revenue in nature. The Tribunal found that the AO's interpretation of Section 35 was misplaced and that the expenditures were allowable under Section 35(1) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was wrong in treating the revenue expenditure as capital expenditure and upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, allowing the entire expenditures incurred by the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2002-03, and 2001-02, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The Tribunal confirmed that the assessee company was entitled to deductions under Section 80-O, the reassessment proceedings were infructuous, and the capital expenditure should be treated as revenue expenditure.
|
