9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of an insignificant issue whether of approval of the Naganathapura unit and the Nashik unit continues even during the previous year and which has been demonstrated by the assessee before the CIT with sufficient documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal has concluded that there was no necessity to have remanded the matter. It has further been held by the Tribunal that the CIT has accepted that if R D activity carried on at the 100% EOUs were different, then there was no need to apportion the R D expenses of the two EOUs. Certificate of the Chartered Accountant given in Form 56G for both these units clearly mention the nature of activities of these two units for the previ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,05,88,159/- is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue as it is rightly held by CIT that in the Profit and Loss account of the EOUs, the expenditure on scientific research claimed and allowed as deduction under Section 35(2)AB was not apportioned and debited to P L Accounts of the two EOU s and thereby the eligible deduction under Section 10B of the Act was allowed in excess by the assessing authority? 2. The facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the Assessing Authority allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) subsequently took up the matter in suo moto revision in exercise of powers under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent of ₹ 19,05,88,159/- is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As is rightly held by the CIT that in the Profit and Loss Account of the EOUs, the expenditure on scientific research claimed and allowed as deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act was not apportioned and debited to the P L account of the two EOUs and thereby eligible deduction under Section 10B of the Act was allowed in excess by the Assessing Officer to the extent of ₹ 19,05,88,159/-. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has rightly set-aside the order passed by the CIT and has held that the view, which was taken by the Assessing Officer was on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid provision was considered by the Supreme Court in MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY VS. CIT , 243 ITR 83 and it was held that the phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer and every loss of revenue as a consequence of the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was further held that where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
