9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciation @10% and 15% on some items under block of Plant and Machinery treating the same as Furniture - Held that:- We find this issue is settled one in favour of the assessee by virtue of the orders of Tribunal in the A.Yrs. 2006-07 to 2009-10. Considering the same and following the rule of consistency, we allow the ground No.3 raised by the assessee. Disallowance on account of Product Development expenses - Held that:- The assessment year specific approach is the decided issue legally and not the date specific approach. We find the facts are somewhat identical to the facts of the present case. Considering the above, we allow the Ground No.5 (a) and (b) needs to be remanded to the file of AO for fresh adjudication on the matters. Addition u/s.48 on account of demat charges which was claimed as expenditure incurred for earning income from capital gains to be deleted Addition made on account of rent paid for the property at Bungalow No.70, Koregaon Park and depreciation - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case there is no clarity with reference to the capitalised items of assets credited to the Serum Institute of India Ltd. in the said house premises occupied by Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the separate orders of CIT (Appeals)-11, Pune, dated 29-01-2016 04-02-2016 for the Assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Background facts of the assessee include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of life saving drugs and vaccines. The cases of Poonawalla Group include two subgroups (1) includes family members of Shri Cyprus Soli Poonawalla (in short CSP) and the group concerns under his control and management (with M/s. Serum Institute of India Ltd. as the flagship company; and (2) other sub-group includes family members of Shri Zavareh Soli Poonawalla (in short ZSP) and the group concerns under his control and management, which is mainly engaged in stud farm activities. There was search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act on the assessee s group of cases on 21-06-2011. In response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, assessee filed the return of income on 13-02-2012 declaring total income of ₹ 14,83,08,431/-. During the said search action, various incriminating documents were found and seized/ by the Department in respect of entities connected with the group. Cash was also seized by the Department. During the assessment proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rming disallowance of rent paid of ₹ 31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of ₹ 12,97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the cost of Electrical work and Civil work ₹ 20,82,47,820/- required to erect Windmill as integrated cost of Windmill eligible for @80% depreciation. b. in not granting additional depreciation on Windmills generating Power for captive consumption in spite of complying the provisions of sec. 32(1)(iia). 10. in confirming disallowance of Selling and Distribution expenses of ₹ 3,64,81,120/-. 11. in confirming the action of A.O. for not directing the AO to reduce Wealth Tax paid of ₹ 20,45,836/- for computing book profit u/s.115JB. 12. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/withdraw any of the Grounds of Appeal at the time of appeal proceedings. Your appellant further submits that the grounds of appeal are, save as otherwise specified, notwithstanding and without prejudice to each other. 4.1 Assessee also filed modified gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhoc basis without applying rule 8D. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has not made adequate disallowance as mandated u/s.14A of the I.T. Act and therefore, the case of the assessee is a fit case for computation of the said disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T. Act. 6.2 After hearing both the sides on this issue, perusing the orders of the Revenue and the assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10, we find the AO did not give the satisfaction having regard to the book of account of the assessee. Further, with similar kind of satisfaction in the case of Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the same falls short of the requirement. For the sake of completeness, relevant paras are extracted as follows : 27. In connection with Ground No.1, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that AO failed to record satisfaction which is required while invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Bringing our attention to the contents of Para No.5.1 of the assessment order, Ld. Counsel submitted that the AO failed to record the satisfaction before invoking the provisions u/s.14A of the Act. Further, Ld. AR read o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of the assessee, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. It is only thereafter that the provisions of section 14A(2) and (3) read with rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable. (emphasis supplied). 31. The above ratio was adopted by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, (in the matter of iGate Computer Systems Limited, (formerly Patni Computer systems Limited amalgamated with iGate Global Solutions Limited and name changed) Vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos. 216 and 360/PUN/2015, order dated 25-01-2018 and allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. For the sake of completeness, relevant operational paras are extracted here as under : 34. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order in para 10 had observed that the assessee had earned significant amount of tax free dividends and in the computation of income, the assessee has disallowed sum of ₹ 50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act. Then, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he formula prescribed under rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing Officer, what the law postulates is the requirement of a satisfaction in the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. It is only thereafter that the provisions of section 14A(2) and (3) read with rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable. (underline provided by us for emphasis) 36. The ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) is thus, not applicable. The ground of appeal No.3 raised by the Revenue is thus, dismissed. 32. From the above, we are of the view that the satisfaction recorded by the AO in Para No.5.1 is extremely based on the suspicion and surmises. The satisfaction arrived at by the AO with reference to the entries in the books of account of the assessee and also having regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. In that sense of the matter, the satisfaction recorded by the AO is ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or verification of facts. 7.3 Per Contra, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 7.4 On hearing both the sides on this issue, we find the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for A.Y. 2009-10 remitted the matter to the file of AO. We proceed to extract the findings of the Tribunal and the same reads as under : 31. However, on the issue of capitalization of the expenditure, in view of the assessee s submission that the expenses incurred for the purpose other than the purchase of machinery, needs to be verified by the AO, we find this issue needs to be remitted back to the file of AO for verification of correctness of the facts relating to this claim. AO is directed to verify the expenses in this regard after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to produce relevant documents to substantiate his claim. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7.5 Following the same reasoning, we are of the view that this grounds needs to be remitted to the file of AO. Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. AO did not allow the weighted deduction of the expenses incurred prior to 03-08-2010 (approval date). In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A), relying on the order of Tribunal in the case of M/s.Advik Hightech Pvt. Ltd. 51 taxmann.com 245, confirmed the addition made by the AO. 10.2 Before us, assessee submits that it has all the approvals in place from the prescribed authority which are applicable for the period under consideration. However, the CIT(A) emphasized that the approval for revenue expenses should be available from 03-08-2010. Assessee submitted that section 35(2AB) was introduced with a view to encourage the R D in industrial sector and nowhere it is mentioned R D facility is to be approved from a particular date. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose behind these provisions is to provide impetus for research, development of new technologies, obtaining patent rights, copyrights and know-how. 42. Insofar as the Apollo Tyres (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the Petitioner had omitted to apply for approval under Form 3CK, though recognition was granted to its R D Centre. The said Form 3CK consists of the Agreement to be entered into with the DSIR, in Part B. The omission by the Petitioner was held against it and this Court held that since the Petitioner had omitted to obtain the approval under Form 3CK, it is not entitled to the benefit of Section 35(2AB) since 2004. The facts of the present case are different and there has been no omission by the Petitioner herein to obtain approvals. The stage for approval arises after the recognition is granted by the DSIR, for which the application was filed right at inception by the Petitioner. Upon obtaining recognition, which was granted on 26th March 2014, the Form 3CK was filed on 31st March 2014. There has been no lapse of time, unlike in Apollo Tyres (supra) wherein the recognition was granted on 31st March, 2004 and the Form 3CK application was made only on 21st August, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rposes. 11. Ground No.6 raised by the assessee relates to addition of ₹ 4,28,524/- u/s.48 of the Act made on account of demat charges which was claimed as expenditure incurred for earning income from capital gains. 11.1 Relevant facts on this issue include that assessee debited the said sum to the profit and loss account and claimed that the same should be allowed while computing the capital gains. Assessee relied on the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Infosys Technologies Vs. JCIT 109 TTJ 631 (Bang.). Assessee contended that the said expenses has been incurred in the normal course of business and the dematerialization helped the assessee significantly in reducing the administrative costs. AO opined that the expenditure incurred for maintenance of share transactions from demat account is not to be allowed u/s.48 of the Act since the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer or as the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement thereto and thus made the disallowance of sum of ₹ 4,28,524/-. While doing so, the AO relied on the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Sri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. DCIT in ITA No.795/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2010-11, decided on 28-04-2017. 12.5 Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 12.6 On hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for deciding the issue in the light of classification of various groups of suppliers as done by the Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. DCIT in ITA No.795/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2010-11, decided on 28-04-2017. In this case, the Tribunal analysed various beneficiaries of such bogus entry operators and depending on the submission of the evidences with regard to the trail of goods, payment etc. the Tribunal identified 4 types of categories. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to extract the said paragraphs from the order of the Tribunal (supra) and the same read as under : 40. In view of the above said ratios, the present issue of bogus purchases is to be decided on the basis of facts of each case. The first aspect is the information received by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, where the statements are recorded and copies of which have been supplied to the assessee and assessee established the case of receipt of goods and its onward transmission by way of sale bills, then the factum of purchases by the assessee stands established in such circumstances. However, the benefit of purchases being made from grey market, needs estimation in the hands of assessee. The Tribunal has already held that the addition be made by estimating the same @ 10% of the alleged hawala purchases. Accordingly, it is so held. In view thereof, the issues which emerge are as under:- I. In case no information is received by the Assessing Officer from the Sale Tax Department and no copy of statement recorded or any other evidence is received from the Sales Tax Department, then no addition is to be made on the basis of name of hawala dealer in the list prepared by the Sales Tax Department, where the assessee had asked for the said information during assessment proceedings. II. Where the Assessing Officer had received the statements of persons who had admitted to have just issued bills of sale without any delivery of goods. In view of such evidence, where the assessee had not en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. 42. The lead case is in the case of M/s. Chhabi Electricals Pvt. Ltd., where the grievance of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer before making the addition has not even supplied the copy of statement or any other evidence recorded by the Sales Tax Department to establish that the purchases made by the assessee were bogus. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has further referred to various documents i.e. gate pass, GRN and issue pass establish its case of delivery of goods i.e. purchase from hawala dealer and its onwards consumption in the manufacturing process of the assessee. In such circumstances, where the assessee has established the trail of goods purchased to the final consumption, then there is no merit in the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the grounds of appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Serum Institute of India Ltd. over the years including A.Y. 2006-07. Contents of Para Nos. 24 to 27 of the order of Tribunal in ITA Nos. 985 and 986/PN/2015 and ITA Nos.1535 1536/PUN/2015, dated 28-11-2007 for the A.Yrs. 2006-07 and 2007-08 are relevant. 13.2 We heard both the sides, perused the orders of the Revenue and the order of Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-10. We find it relevant to reproduce the finding given by the Tribunal and the same reads as under : 54. We heard both the sides and perused the orders of the Revenue and the order of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the A.Yrs. 2006-07 and 2007-08. On perusal of the said order of the Tribunal (supra), it is evident that the ground raised in this appeal relates to rent as well as expenditure incurred on repairs and renovation. At the end of the proceedings, the Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee. We find it relevant to extract the relevant paras of the Tribunal (supra) and the same reads as under : 25. On this issue, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar issue was adjudicated in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2005-06 in his favour. Bringing our attention to Para No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... occupied by Mr. Z.S. Poonawalla, applicable rate of depreciation and the use of the asset etc. As discussed in the open court, we are of the opinion that this limb of the ground should be remanded to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, this part of the issue is allowed for statistical purposes. Thus, Ground No.8 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 13.3 Considering the above, we are of the opinion that, with similar directions given in A.Y. 2009-10 (supra) this grounds is remanded to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the Ground No.8 by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Ground No.9 relates to allowability of depreciation @80% on the cost and Electrical and Civil Works amounting to ₹ 20,82,47,820/-. 14.1 Relevant facts on this issue include that, during the impugned assessment year, assessee installed windmill and claimed depreciation @80% on the same. The AO relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Poonawalla Finvest and Agro (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 118 TTJ 68 allowed the depreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 456/PUN/2012 (Pune ITAT) 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides and perused the orders of the Revenue on this issue and the decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Cooper Foundary Pvt. Ltd. on the identical issue has held as under : 2. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that windmill was erected in the desert area of Rajasthan which required special foundation of reinforced cement concrete and that the said reinforced cement concrete formed integral part of the windmill. The Tribunal has also followed the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Herdilla Chemicals Ltd. reported in (1005) 216 ITR 742 (Bom.) in allowing the claim of the assessee. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that RCC foundation forms integral part of the windmill is a finding of fact and no question of law arises from the same. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 14.5 Further, we find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal also decided similar issue in catena of decisions. We find in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Subhas Hastimal Lodha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantum which remains is whether civil work and foundation necessary for installation of wind mill should be considered as integral part or not. If yes, then, depreciation as applicable to wind mill should be accorded to the civil structure and foundation needed to set up wind mill or not. In my considered view it is a well settled legal position that expenses incurred on foundation should be considered as an integral part of the plant and machinery. This fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) wherein it has been decided that fixed assets should include all the expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and put them in working condition. During the course of the appellate proceedings Ld AR while referring the ratio of decision of CIT Vs. K. K. Enterprise (2014) reported at 108 DTR 0109 (Raj), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has observed that the civil work and foundation is necessary for strong foundation and no windmill could be installed without having a strong foundation. As such depreciation on investment for civil work and foundation at the rate which the depreciation is allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preciation of 80% on renewable energy devises including windmill and any specially designed devises, which runs on windmill. The civil structure and the electric fitting, equipments are part and parcel of the windmill and cannot be separated from the same. The assessee's claim for higher depreciation on such investment was, therefore, rightly allowed. 3.1.4 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-III, Pune Vs. Cooper Foundry Pvt. Ltd.(Supra) has also held that cement foundation is to be included in the cost of the windmill while granting depreciation @ 80%. Similar issue has been taken by Pune Bench B in the case of ACIT Vs. Western Precicast Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and by Chennai Tribunal in the case of Kutti Spinners (P) Ltd. In view of the foregoing discussion and respectfully following the decisions of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. reported at 118 ITR 772 (Born) and Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Vs. CIT 98 ITR 167 (SC) and decision of Pune ITAT in the case of Mayura Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Supra), in the case of Dr. Santosh Kalmesh Prabhu Vs. ACIT (Supra) and in the case of ACIT Vs. Suma Shilipa Limited (Supra), I am of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ores. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the assessee relying on the order for A.Y.2010-11. 15.2 Aggrieved with the confirmation of disallowance by the CIT(A) on this issue, the assessee is in appeal before us. 15.3 Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee company is one of the largest vaccine manufacturing company. During the year, assessee company launched various new products, such as Hibpro Pentavac. In order to make the doctors aware of this innovation, assessee company conducted a campaign involving private doctors for encouraging the doctors to conduct vaccination on infants. In the process, a scheme was formulated offering discount on the basis of purchases made by them. He submitted that the AO failed in placing relying on the Notification issued by Medical Council of India dated 14-09-2009. The said circular prohibits medical practitioners, professional associates from taking any gift, travel facility, hospitality etc. AO failed to appreciate that the Pharma companies are not the members of Medical Council and hence, the notification is not applicable to them. AO failed to appreciate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order, we proceed to extract the operational finding from the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal. Finding from PHL Pharma Pvt. Ltd. 6. On a plain reading of the aforesaid notification, which has been heavily relied upon by the department, it is quite apparent that the code of conduct enshrined therein is meant to be followed and adhered by medical practitioners/doctors alone. It illustrates the various kinds of conduct or activities which a medical practitioner should avoid while dealing with pharmaceutical companies and allied health sector industry. It provides guidelines to the medical practitioners of their ethical codes and moral conduct. Nowhere the regulation or the notification mentions that such a regulation or code of conduct will cover pharmaceutical companies or health care sector in any manner. The department has not brought anything on record to show that the aforesaid regulation issued by Medical Council of India is meant for pharmaceutical companies in any manner........ The aforesaid provision applies to an assessee who is claiming deduction of expenditure while computing his business income. The Explanation provides an embargo upon allowing any expend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the context of factual matrix of the case. In this case, we found from record that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products. In the course of its business it has incurred expenditure on advertisement and publicity. While framing the assessment, AO has called for the detail of expenditure so incurred and examined the nature of expenditure and thereafter only AO has allowed the expenditure as having been incurred for the purpose of business. We had also carefully gone through the notification dated 11/03/2002 notifying the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI). The code of conduct laid down in the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 ('MCI Regulations') issued with effect from 10th December 2009 applies only to doctors and not to Pharmaceutical and Medical device companies. Accordingly, MCI Regulations are not applicable to assessee, the question of assessee incurring expenditure in alleged violation of the regulations does not arise. 18. On the plain and simple reading of the provision of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, it is apparent that the ambit of statutory provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no question of contravention of the MCI Regulations and applicability of Circular no. 5 of 2012 for disallowance of the expenditure. 22. The department has not brought anything on record to show that the aforesaid regulation issued by Medical Council of India is meant for pharmaceutical companies in any manner. On the contrary, the assessee has brought to the notice of the bench the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Max Hospital v. MCI in [WPC 1334 of 2013, dated 10- 1-2014], wherein the Medical Council of India admitted that the Indian Medical Council Regulation of 2002 has jurisdiction to take action only against the medical practitioners and not to health sector industry. From the aforesaid decision, it is ostensibly clear that the Medical Council of India has no jurisdiction to pass any order or regulation against any hospital or any health care sector under its 2002 regulation. So once the Indian Medical Council Regulation does not have any jurisdiction nor has any authority under law upon the pharmaceutical company or any allied health sector industry, then such a regulation cannot have any prohibitory effect on the pharmaceutical company like the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Income Tax Law or by any provisions under the Indian Medical Council Regulations. The CBDT cannot provide casus omissus to a statute or notification or any regulation which has not been expressly provided therein. The CBDT can tone down the rigours of law and ensure a fair enforcement of the provisions by issuing circulars and by clarifying the statutory provisions. CBDT circulars act like 'contemporanea expositio' in interpreting the statutory provisions and to ascertain the true meaning enunciated at the time when statute was enacted. However the CBDT in its power cannot create a new impairment adverse to an assessee or to a class of assessee without any sanction of law. The circular issued by the CBDT must confirm to tax laws and for purpose of giving administrative relief or for clarifying the provisions of law and cannot impose a burden on the assessee, leave alone creating a new burden by enlarging the scope of a different regulation issued under a different act so as to impose any kind of hardship or liability to the assessee. In any case, it is trite law that the CBDT circular which creates a burden or liability or imposes a new kind of imparity, same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the CBDT. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the Ground No.10/Modified Ground No.10 raised by the assessee should be allowed in favour of the assessee. 16. Ground No.11 raised by the assessee relates to allowability of deduction to the Wealth Tax paid by the assessee for the purpose of computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act. AO denied the said payment of tax as not an allowable deduction. 16.1 Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of decision of Tribunal in the assessee s own case in ITA Nos. 1183 and 1537/PUN/2015, dated 28-11-2017 for the A.Y. 2008-09 as well as ITA No.1184/PUN/2016, dated 08-06-2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 16.1 On hearing both the sides, we find this issue needs to be decided allowed in favour of the assessee by virtue of orders of Tribunal (supra) in assessee s own case for the A.Yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to extract the finding given by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2009-10 (supra) and the same reads as under : 59. On hearing both the sides, we find this issue has to be decided in favour of the assessee in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition of ₹ 12,13,652/- c. in not addressing and allowing the expenditure incurred on foreign travel expenditure of lady directors amounting to ₹ 76,11,395/-. d. in not addressing towards addition of ₹ 76,11,395 to income in the computation inspite of it being set off in the amount declared in search action as Non Business expenditure . 3. in directing the AO to classify items of fixed assets of ₹ 15,19,712/- like stainless steel tables, stools, racks etc. located in manufacturing unit into Furniture and Fixtures and Plant and Machinery . 4. in not allowing the weighted deduction of expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to ₹ 5,23,17,132/-. 5. in not confirming the disallowance of Demat charges amounting to ₹ 7,52,744/- made by the Assessing Officer. 6. a. in not considering the cost of electrical work and civil work of ₹ 1,22,83,188/- required to erect Windmill as integrated cost of Windmill eligible for @80% depreciation. b. in not granting additional depreciation on Windmills generation Power for captive consumption inspite of complying the provisions of sec.32(1)(iia). 7. in confirming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y. 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes ITA No.607 934/PUN/2016 (By Revenue) A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 We shall now take up the appeals of the Revenue for the A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13. 21. Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue for both the assessment years. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal No.607/PUN/2016, taking the facts in the said appeal, as a standard one. Grounds raised by the Revenue for A.Y. 2011-12 are extracted here as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to exclude investments in Debt Oriented Mutual Funds for the purpose of disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D when no such exclusion has been mandated by the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to segregate assets into furniture and Plant and Machinery when both assets are indistinguishable and fall in the category of furniture and not plant and machinery. 3. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and the assessing officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal. 22. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
