2017 (10) TMI 371 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Eligibility to claim deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) - expenditure relates to the business of the parent company - Held that - From the overall reading of the agreement between the assessee and SI Group US it becomes abundantly clear that the entire R&D activity is carried on for the benefit and development of business of SI Group US and does not pertain to the assessee s business. The assessee is permitted to use the result of the R&D product only if the SI Group US grants license which is also subject to payment of royalty. These factors clearly demonstrate that the entire R&D activities carried on by the assessee is for the business of SI Group US and not for itself. This fact is further proved from assessee s own admission that the entire revenue expenditure relating to R&D activities was reimbursed by SI Group US. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid factual position, it is hardly believable that the revenue expenditure on R&D relates to the business of the parent company whereas, the capital expenditure on R&D relates to the Assessee. As discussed earlier, the entire R&D activities was carried on by the assessee for the benefit of its parent company and not for itself. Therefore, one of the basic conditions of Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act is not fulfilled. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-Wise Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263, which deemed the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT's contention was that the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed a deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) without proper verification, making the assessment order erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not examine or enquire into the deduction claim under Section 35(1)(iv) during the assessment proceedings. The absence of such enquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying the CIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263.

2. Eligibility of the Assessee to Claim Deduction Under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The core issue was whether the assessee's claim for deduction of capital expenditure under Section 35(1)(iv) was permissible. The provision allows deduction for capital expenditure on scientific research related to the business carried on by the assessee. The assessee argued that the capital expenditure was for its own business, while revenue expenditure was reimbursed by the parent company. However, the CIT and the Tribunal found that the entire R&D activity was conducted for the benefit of the parent company, not the assessee’s own business. The Tribunal emphasized that the capital expenditure must be related to the business carried on by the assessee, which was not the case here. Therefore, the deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) was not permissible.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's order under Section 263, concluding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the lack of enquiry by the AO. The Tribunal also ruled that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) as the capital expenditure on R&D was not related to its own business but was for the benefit of the parent company. The appeal by the assessee was dismissed.