9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 794X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e coming to the conclusion that in order to be eligible for deduction u/s. 35(1), the assessee is required to maintain separate books of account in respect of its R&D facilities. We, therefore are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings given by the Tribunal in its order dated 31.1.2018. The assessee is seeking review of the order passed by the Tribunal in the guise of rectification which is not permissible u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Hence, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. - M.A. No. 498/Mum/2018 arising out of I.T.A. No. 3533/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 24-1-2019 - S/Shri Pawan Singh (JM) And G. Manjunatha (AM) For the Assessee : Shri Subhash S. Shetty For the Department : Shri Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 35(2)(ia) of the Act because it had not maintained separate independent books of account in respect of its Research Development Unit. 4. While challenging the order of the CIT-1 passed under section 263, the appellant inter-alia submitted before the Hon'ble Tribunal that the learned CIT-1 committed a gross error of law and fact in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction claimed under section 35(l)(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) because it had not maintained separate independent books of account in respect of the Research Development Unit. It was further submitted that there was no requirement prescribed under the provisions of section 35(l)(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) to maintain sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment order. 7. On the facts and circumstance of the case narrated above and the statutory provisions of the Act, the impugned order of the Hon ble Tribunal suffers from mistake apparent from the record. It is therefore requested that the mistake apparent from the record be rectified in the interest of justice. 3. Learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing submitted that there is an error in the order of the ITAT in so far as findings with regard to denial of deduction claimed u/s. 35(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of R D expenditure where it was observed that the assessee needs to maintain separate books of account in order to be eligible for said deduction, but the facts remains that the Act never prescribe m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
