9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraph 29, which is reproduced hereinabove. Based upon the same we have granted deduction u/s.10B herein above. We upheld 10B deduction for A.Y 2009-10 in assessee s appeal, based upon view expressed by Tribunal in original order dated 08/02/2019(paragraph 29 reproduced hereinabove), assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.10B, for year under consideration, only in respect of income earned from manufacturing segment, which cannot be interfered with at this stage. Thus, in the present appeal filed by revenue, Ld.AO shall call for necessary details regarding bifurcation of total claim attributable to manufacturing and R D segment. Since this Tribunal has upheld contention of assessee regarding ratification of approval relating back to the date of original approval, assessee shall be granted claim u/s.10B, pertaining to income earned from manufacturing segment. - IT(TP)A No. 249/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A No. 2200/Bang/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2020 - Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member And Smt. Beena Pillai, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CA For the Respondent : Ms. Neera Malhotra ,CIT DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by the board is merely a formality and therefore would relate back to the date of actual grant, as the assessee cannot be permitted to wait till entity, if there is a delay/latch on the part of the board for not ratifying within that time sanctioned by DC. 3.1. He submitted that after recording observations, reproduced hereinabove, this Tribunal, while concluding in para 44, only decided issue pertaining to R D services provided by assessee being not covered for claiming deduction under section 10 B of the Act, thereby dismissing grounds 5.1 - 5.4 of assessee s appeal. 3.2. On the contrary, Ld.CIT DR vehemently argued that, recall of order dated 08/02/19 amounts to review, as issue raised by assessee in ground 5.4 has been decided against assessee, after dealing with various aspects of scheme and permissions issued by the DC. She led us through order passed by this Tribunal dated 08/02/19, and submitted that assessee did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for claiming deduction under section 10 B which has been observed by this Tribunal in para 43, thereby leading to dismissal of claim of deduction under section 10 B. 3.3. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 10B of the Act; That form 56G of obtained by assessee at the time of filing original return of income does not support the claim of deduction made by the company. 4.3. From the above, as well as observations recorded by Ld.AO in draft assessment order in para 5.6, reveals that, in original form 56G filed by assessee deduction under section 10B was claimed for manufacturing segment at ₹ 1,03,13,047/-. And subsequently form 56G was revised by claiming deduction under section 10B at ₹ 1,19,45,674/-, wherein claim included receipts from R D services. And further that assessee has not obtained a separate approval for the R D services. 4.4. DRP while considering the issue observed as under: 23. We have duly considered the facts of the case, submissions of the assessee and the draft assessment order. We observe that assessee was 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and the intermediates for Apotex group. Apart from this, the assessee was also providing the Apotex group certain contract R D services which apparently fell outside the manufacturing activiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit being available to assessee for reasons mentioned therein. 4.7. Thereafter, from para 30 onwards till paragraph 43 the Tribunal discussed and analysed scope of eligibility with regard to R D activities undertaken by assessee within the ambit of section 10B. In para 43-44 being conclusion, this Tribunal opines as under: 43. From a close scrutiny of the activities undertaken by the assessee, it is clear that the assessee is required to conduct the research in compliance with the specifications that may be provided in writing to the assessee by its AE s and assessee is not permitted to deviate from the specifications without a written prior approval. Moreover the approval granted to the assessee by the DC with respect to the item mentioned under: Research and Development centre with an associated production facility of chloro benzene and other chemicals. Thus it is clear that the activity undertaken by assessee under essays it was only one that is R D centre and there were two separate independent activities which were permitted to be undertaken, viz., Production of medical formulas and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds allowed. In the result assessee s ground stands allowed as indicated hereinabove. IT(TP)A 2200/B/2016 (AY 2011-12) 5. In grounds alleged by revenue, contends that Ld.CIT(A) granted deduction u/s.10B of the entire claim, even though certificate issued by DC was not available during relevant period. This Tribunal in original consolidated order dated 08/02/2019, allowed revenue appeal by following its decision in paragraph 44(reproduced herein above) It is observed that date of issue of approval was 25/03/11, which is a mere extension of original approval dated 16/04/04, placed at page 513 of paper book. Further, Ld.AO following A.Y.2009-10 disallowed the claim of assessee, which was reversed by Ld.CIT(A) by observing as under: 4. In view of the above and the fact that approval of the development commissioner was ratified by the board of approval, the contention of the appellant is correct. 5. It is seen that in the case of enable exports private Ltd (ITA No. 1072 of 2011) the Delhi High Court has held that approval granted by the development commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
