9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt has already been offered for tax not supported with relevant documents. We find that in the paper book the assessee has placed various documents and details stating that expenses incurred by the assessee in design and development of the auto components activity has been capitalized as engineering and development cost in the books of account in the past years and claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) as capital expenditure incurred on scientific research. After taking into consideration the submission and material placed in the paper book we are of the considered view that it is appropriate to restore this issue to the fact of the A.O for deciding a de novo after examination/verification of the relevant document and detail filed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on order be treated as null and void. 2. Ground 2: Erroneously passing a rectification order under section 154 of the Act without considering the fact that there is no mistake apparent from record. 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in passing a rectification order under section 154 of the Act without considering the fact that there is no mistake apparent from record. Your Appellant prays that such rectification order be treated as null and void. 3. Ground 3: Erroneously adding the profit of INR 3,67,14,142 recorded in the books of accounts on realizing from Ford Motor Company 3.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently, assessing officer has passed order u/s 154 of the Act on 26.03.2018. The A.O stated in the order u/s 154 that that in the computation of income assessee added back an amount of ₹ 15,80,36,317/- towards Ford settlement, sale of research and development and deducted an amount of ₹ 3,67,14,142/- towards Ford settlement profit on sale of research and development and the same was allowed in scrutiny assessment. The assessee explained that consideration of ₹ 15,80,36,317/- received from Ford has been fully offered to tax and the profit of ₹ 3,67,14,142/- has been reduced while computing the total income. However, the A.O has not accepted the submission of the assessee stating that claim of the assessee that amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of engineering and design charges has been offered to tax. She has also referred statement of computation of total income pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 wherein amount received from the Ford settlement was added to the total income under the head expenses not deductible and profit on sale of R D was also specifically reflected in the computation of total income. She vehemently contended that the relevant details and supporting document has not been considered by the lower authorities before adjudicating the appeal of assessee. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has supported the order of lower authorities. 5. The assessing officer has passed the order u/s 154 of the Act on 26.03.2008 and disallowed an amount of ₹ 3,67,14,142 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een offered for tax not supported with relevant documents. We find that in the paper book the asessee has placed various documents and details stating that expenses incurred by the assessee in design and development of the auto components activity has been capitalized as engineering and development cost in the books of account in the past years and claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(iv) as capital expenditure incurred on scientific research. After taking into consideration the submission and material placed in the paper book we are of the considered view that it is appropriate to restore this issue to the fact of the A.O for deciding a de novo after examination/verification of the relevant document and detail filed by the assessee in support of it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
