9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instant case. No merit in the submissions made by Ld. D.R. with regard to the above said case. We notice that the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. [ 2019 (1) TMI 20 - ITAT BANGALORE] , wherein it has been clearly held that No.3CL had no legal sanctity prior to 1.7.2016. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken a view on this issue based on the case laws relied on by the assessee before it. We are not able appreciate the contentions advanced by Ld D.R for distinguishing the decision rendered in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd (supra) the law interpreted by theco-ordinate bench in the above said case has been followed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... % u/s35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short].The assessee has claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act to the tune of ₹ 51.03 lakhs, being 200% of the expenditure incurred on research development of ₹ 25.51 lakhs. However, form 3CL issued by DSIR, New Delhi to the assessee, the AO noticed that an amount of₹ 2,63,000/- only was mentioned therein and hence the A.O. restricted the deduction to 200% of ₹ 2.63 lakhs referred above i.e. to the extent of ₹ 5.26 lakhs. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of ₹ 51.03 lakhs by following the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. (ITA No.641/Bang/2017 dated1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic Mobility Ltd. (supra), the assessee did not furnish Form No.3CL at all, whereas in the instant case, the Form No.3CL was submitted by the assessee to the AO. Hence, the decision rendered in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. is distinguishable on facts and the Tribunal has committed an error in following the same. Accordingly, the Ld. D.R. prayed that recall of the impugned order in view of the above said mistakes pointed out by the revenue. 5. On the contrary, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the facts prevailing in the case of Tejas Network Ltd. (supra) is different and hence the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. He submitted that in the case of Tejas Network Ltd, the Hon ble High Court has consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in paragraph 7 of its order has erroneously mentioned the assessment year as 2014-15 , whereas, the Tribunal was actually adjudicating the appeal pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. The Ld. A.R. submitted that this typographical error may kindly be corrected. 8. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We agree with the submissions of Ld. A.R. that the Hon ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court, in the case of Tejas Network Ltd. (supra), has considered an altogether different issue and hence it was not relevant to the issue adjudicated by the Tribunal in the instant case. Hence, we do not find any merit in the submissions made by Ld. D.R. with regard to the above said case. We notice that the Tribunal has follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
