9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal, in the above said appeal, has decided the issue of eligibility of the assessee to claim weighted deduction @ 200% 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 Rs. 51.03 lakhs, being 200% of the expenditure incurred on research & development of Rs. 25.51 lakhs. However, form 3CL issued by DSIR, New Delhi to the assessee, the AO noticed that an amount ofRs. 2,63,000/- only was mentioned therein and hence the A.O. restricted the deduction to 200% of Rs. 2.63 lakhs referred above i.e. to the extent of Rs. 5.26 lakhs. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 51.03 lakhs by following the decision rendered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent from record. 4. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that in the case of Mahindra Electric 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accounts was directed to be allowed. 7. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the Tribunal 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
