9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent-assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of research, production, processing and marketing of seeds to farmers. The original Return of Income for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed on 27.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.2,00,81,225/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was originally completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 24.04.2012 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at a total income of Rs.2,24,40,208/- before set-off of brought forward losses. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the appeal was partly allowed and the Assessing Officer passed an order giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the income was assessed at Rs.2,00,30,230/- before set-off of brought forward losses. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened based on the information furnished by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Technology Bhavan, New Delhi, wherein, it was stated that no approval u/s 35(2AB) was granted to the respondent-assessee company from the period of 01.04.2005 to 31.03.20009 vide letter dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as valid till March 31, 2003 and had been renewed time and again. The Secretary, DSIR also approved the facility of the appellant company by Form 3CM No.TU.IV-15(236)/35(2AB)/3CM/2/7/2007 dated April 2, 2007. Thereafter renewal of recognition was accorded by the DSIR to the facility by its letter No.TU/IV-RD/2116/2009 dated January 12, 2010 for Renewal of the Recognition. Such renewal was up to the year March 31, 2012. Thereafter, the renewal of recognition had been granted vide letter dated July 18, 2012 up to March 31, 2016. In support of the same, the letters issued by the DSIR were also submitted during the appellate proceedings for AY 2014-15. Further the Secretary, DSIR vide order No.TU/IV-15(1485)/ 35(2AB)/3CM/1226/2017 also accorded the approval to the R & D facility of the appellant company from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019. The fact that Form 3CK and 3CM was not available for the current year is totally immaterial." 7. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 8. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in the absence of requisite approval u/s 35(2AB), the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have granted the weighted deduction u/s 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... research (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building) on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority43, then, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-half times of the expenditure so incurred: Provided that where such expenditure on scientific research (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building) on in-house research and development facility is incurred in a previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, the deduction under this clause shall be equal to the expenditure so incurred. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, "expenditure on scientific research", in relation to drugs and pharmaceuticals, shall include expenditure incurred on clinical drug trial, obtaining approval from any regulatory authority under any Central, State or Provincial Act and filing an application for a patent under the Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970). (2) No deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure mentioned in clause (1) under any other provision of this Act. (3) No company shall be entitled for deduction under cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs Dilip Kumar & Company & Others in Civil Appeal No.3327 of 2007 decided on 30.07.2018. 12. Reliance placed by the ld. AR on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the ratio laid down in the said case is that once the requisite approval is granted to an assessee u/s 35(2AB) by prescribed authorities, there is nothing in the provisions of law u/s 35(2AB) that only the approval is relevant not the date of approval of facility availing the benefit u/s 35(2AB), as it amounts to reading more than in law which is not expressly provided in the present case. Admittedly, in the present case, no approval as envisaged u/s 35(2AB) was granted by the prescribed authorities. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. Similarly, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
