2022 (4) TMI 844 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of weighted deduction on research development expenditure incurred (both capital and revenue expenditure) and claimed u/s. 35(2AB) - AO restricted claim as per Form 3CL certified issued by DSIR - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2020 (2) TMI 143 - ITAT CHENNAI entire claim of weighted deduction claimed by the assessee cannot be acceded to over and above the restriction made by the DSIR. In view of the above facts and circumstances and case law relied on, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to allow the correct amount of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act after taking note of the DSIR certificate dated 16.03.2017. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed for assessment year 2012-13. For 2016-17, the Ld. AR for the assessee stated that the disallowance of weighted deduction on research development expenditure incurred, both capital and revenue expenditure, due to non-receipt of Form No. 3CL issued by DSIR - We remit this issue back to the file of the AO who will decide the issue as per the report received from DSIR, as per law. Needless to say, that the assessee is free to raise any issue before AO on this particular issue as per law. The AO will not object for non-consideration of issue. Accordingly, this issue of assessee's appeal for assessment year 2016-17 is remanded back to the file of the AO. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT - This issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI 567 - SC ORDER wherein it was held that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. As the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee, we delete the disallowance and direct the AO to recompute the income. Accordingly, this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed. Addition made on account of non-reconciliation of income as per Form 26AS and income as offered by assessee - AR stated that the difference was mainly due to deduction of tax deducted at source by the deductor on the amount including service tax. Hence, according to him tax was deducted at source on the service tax portion also - HELD THAT - AR before us filed a statement containing reconciliation for majority of difference and he pleaded that from the reconciliation statement, it is evidence that the tax was deducted at source on service tax - When these Form No. 26AS and reconciliation filed by assessee are confronted to ld. CIT-DR, he fairly conceded that this reconciliation should have been submitted before the AO but on principle, he agreed that in case the difference was mainly due to deduction of tax at source by the deductors on the amount of service tax, the same can be deleted by the AO. As both agreed that the issue is simply of reconciliation, we remit this issue back to the file of AO, who will verify the reconciliation statement viz-a-viz Form No. 26AS and after verification, he will decide the claim of assessee. Accordingly, this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose and set aside to the file of AO.

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of weighted deduction on research & development expenditure under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition due to non-reconciliation of income as per Form 26AS and income offered by the assessee.
4. Deduction of cess as an allowable expenditure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Weighted Deduction on Research & Development Expenditure:
The first common issue concerns the disallowance of weighted deduction on research & development expenditure under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) restricted the deduction based on the certificate issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) in Form 3CL, leading to a disallowance of ?1,10,54,154 for AY 2012-13 and ?16,89,81,370 for AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s decision, stating that the AO is not prevented from acting on the DSIR report. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessee in its own case for AY 2014-15 and other relevant case laws, and thus dismissed the appeal for AY 2012-13. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to await the decision of DSIR, allowing the assessee to raise any issues before the AO.

2. Disallowance of Expenses Related to Exempt Income:
The next issue for AY 2012-13 involves the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income under Section 14A of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, amounting to ?8,06,000. The assessee argued that it had not earned or claimed any exempt income. The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd., where it was held that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income was earned. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance and directed the AO to recompute the income.

3. Addition Due to Non-Reconciliation of Income:
The third issue pertains to the addition of ?16,77,044 due to non-reconciliation of income as per Form 26AS and the income offered by the assessee. The AO made the addition as the assessee did not reconcile the figures. The assessee argued that the difference was due to tax deducted at source (TDS) on service tax. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification of the reconciliation statement and Form 26AS, directing the AO to decide the claim after verification.

4. Deduction of Cess as an Allowable Expenditure:
The assessee raised an additional ground regarding the deduction of cess as an allowable expenditure. However, the assessee chose not to press this issue in light of the Finance Bill 2022, which clarified that cess is part of tax. Consequently, this ground was dismissed as withdrawn.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific issues remanded back to the AO for further verification and decision. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of weighted deduction for AY 2012-13, deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, and remanded the reconciliation issue for AY 2012-13 back to the AO. The additional ground regarding cess was dismissed as withdrawn.

← Previous Next →