9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the assessee to the prescribed authority, the assessee would have no control over when such application is processed and decided. Even if therefore, the application is complete in all respects and the assessee is otherwise eligible for grant of such approval, approval may take some time to come by. The claim for deduction cannot be defeated on the ground that such approval was granted in the year subsequent to the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred. No such indication was given by this Court in case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd.(2008 (8) TMI 579 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), none appears from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(2017 (8) TMI 248 - DELHI HIGH COURT)- Decided in favour of the assessee - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1057 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2018 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr B S Soparkar (6851) For The Respondent : Mrs Mauna M Bhatt (174) ORDER PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Notice of final disposal was issued in the appeal admitting the following substantial question of law : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AB) with effect from 1.04.2008 to 31.03.2010. In view of such specific mentioned of the date it is very clear that the approval is granted for a specific period and therefore the deduction u/s.35(2AB) is restricted for the period 1.04.2008 to 31.03.2010. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal confirming the view of the Assessing Officer. Judgment in case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (supra) was distinguished in the following manner : In the case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 113 (Gujarat) relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decided the matter in favour of the assessee as per para8 of the decision on the ground that the approval was granted during the previous year relevant to assessment year in question in that case. Based on this fact, the High Court had held that assessee was entitled to claim weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) in respect of entire expenditure incurred during the previous year. In appellant's case, facts are different in as much as the approval was received in F.Y. 200809 i.e after F.Y. 200708 was already over and even the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. 7. The record would thus show that the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act on the expenditure incurred for setting up research and development facility. This was backed by the approval granted by the concerned authority with respect to such facility. The Revenue authorities i.e. the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) were of the opinion that such deduction cannot be granted for the period prior to the effective date of approval. The Tribunal however, thought that the facts are somewhat contradictory. It was not clear when the application for approval was made and when actually approval was granted. The Tribunal therefore, remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. 8. The assessee has challenged this decision of the Tribunal on the basis of two judgments. One of this Court in case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (supra) already referred earlier and other of Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2017) 397 ITR 728. Revenue however contends that both these judgments are distinguishable on facts. It was canvassed that in case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial year. However, this was not the basis on which the Court has confirmed the decision of the Tribunal. There is nothing in the said judgment to suggest that had these events fallen in different years, the view of the Court would have been any different. 11. Judgment of this Court in case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (supra) was followed by Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) in order to grant the assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The Court held that for availing deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, what is relevant is not the date of recognition or the cutoff date mentioned in the certificate of the prescribed authority or even the date of approval, but the existence of recognition. The Court observed as under : 41. Section 35(2AB) clearly provides that any expenditure incurred by a party on its R D facility, except, insofar as it relates to land and building is liable to be allowed to be claimed as deduction (twice the amount of expenditure). A perusal of the scheme of the Act especially Sections 35(2AB), 35A and 35AB reveals in no uncertain terms, that the purpose behind these provisions is to provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
