9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed per ground no. 1, relates to the claim for deduction u/s.35(2AB), made at Rs. 2,88,32,702/-, since confirmed for disallowance by the first appellate authority. Section 35(2AB) provides for weighted (i.e., at 1.5 times) deduction qua the expenditure incurred by a company engaged in the business of biotechnology or in the manufacturing or production of any article or thing (not being an article or thing specified in the eleventh schedule to the Act) on scientific research (other than on the cost of any land or building) carried out in-house per a research and development facility, which stands approved by the prescribed authority. The reasons for the disallowance in the instant case are as under: a) the approval is not in the prescribed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in the assessee's own case, which discusses this issue vide paras 11-13 of its order dated 12.02.2014 (supra). In our clear view, except where and to the extent it leads to defeating the legislative intent, the assessee is obliged to comply with the prescription of the provision. The approval, the quantum of deduction being not the subject matter thereof, is to be in the prescribed form. Though apparently procedural, the same, it may be appreciated, has a substantive aspect to it in-as-much as the same only conveys that the in-house research and development facility under reference is an approved one. It is only this that would exhibit that all the conditions for granting the approval (which the tribunal in the assessee's case for A.Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee's submissions dated 27.06.2011, 20.09.2011 and 12.10.2011 (PB pgs.121-128), we find relevant in this regard in-as-much as they do not bear any reference to any expenditure per payments to an outsider. Further, the assessee has, in pursuance of its application u/s.154 dated 21.11.2011, already secured deduction u/s.37(1) qua the revenue component of the relevant expenditure, so that we may not issue any separate direction/s qua the same (PB pgs.137-138, 139), as was done by the tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 vide para 13 of its order. Needless to add, where and to the extent the assessee's deduction is allowed u/s. 35(2AB), deduction u/s.37(1), since allowed, would require being withdrawn. We decide accordingly. 4. The assessee's second gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udit report in the requisite form, as afore-said, reference thereto has already been made per the return of income. The copy of the same, dated 26.09.2009, the same date on which the audited accounts have been signed by the Directors and Auditors, is on record (PB pgs.103-112). Reference thereto is also made at para 26 of Form 3CD, i.e., the audit report prescribed u/s.44AD. Even assuming that the report stood omitted to be filed along with the return of income, the same has since been made good. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in the objection raised by the Revenue. We decide accordingly. 5. The third and the final ground raised by the assessee is in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s.80-G, i.e., qua donation to Prime Mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
