TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction u/s.35(1)(i) is allowed only at 100%. The conditions for allowing deduction u/s.35(1)(i) and under Sec.35(2AB) are identical with the only difference being that the Assessee claiming deduction u/s.35(2AB) should be engaged in manufacture of certain articles or things. It is not in dispute that the Assessee is engaged in business to which Sec.35(2AB) applied. The other condition required to be fulfilled for claiming deduction u/s.35(2AB) is that the research and development facility should be approved by the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority is the Secretary, Department of Scientific Industrial Research, Govt. Of India (DSIR). It is not in dispute that the Assessee in the present case obtained approval in Form No.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, we dismiss Ground No.2 as not pressed in respect of both the appeals. 6. The only effective ground for adjudication in respect of both these appeals is Ground No.1 which pertains to confirmation of disallowance by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) u/s.35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act‟) being amount of expenditure incurred on in-house Research Development Facility but not reported in Form 3CL issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). The assessee wants allowance of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act of ₹ 54,03,317/- in ITA No.2660/PUN/2017 for assessment year 2013-14. Similarly, in ITA No.2661/PUN/2017 for assessment year 2014-15, in Ground No.1, weig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that this issue has been consistently held in favour of the assessee in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessment years before us are A.Ys. 2013-14 2014-15. That both the parties have agreed, the facts and circumstances and issues involved are absolutely identical in both the assessment years under consideration. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Rule 6(7A)(b) came into effect from 01.07.2016 wherein under sub-rule(ii) of (b) of (7A) requires the assessee to quantify the expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the assessment years under consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that since the assessment year under consideration is 2011-12 the (ii) of (b)(7A) of Rule 6 is not applicable. He brought to our notice on similar identical facts, this Tribunal allowed the claim in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein on perusal of the same we note that this Tribunal held that it is not the requirement of law to get any certification/approval of expenditure from the DSIR in for No. 3CL and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the weighted deduction expenditure incurred in the hands of assessee u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. For ready reference the para No. 18 is reproduced here-in-below : 18. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the present set of facts, where it is not the requirement of law to get any certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.641/Bang/2017 dated 14th September, 2018 wherein the Tribunal has observed and held as follows: 20. From the above discussion it is clear that prior to 1.7.2016 Form 3CL had no legal sanctity and it is only w.e.f 1.7.2016 with the amendment to Rule 6(7A)(b) of the Rules, that the quantification of the weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act has significance. In the present case there is no difficulty about the quantum of deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act, because the AO allowed 100% of the expenditure as deduction u/s.35(2AB)(1)(i) of the Act, as expenditure on scientific research. Deduction u/s.35(1)(i) and Sec.35(2AB) of the Act are similar except that the deduction u/s.35(2AB) is allowed as weighted deduction at 200% of the expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|