9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/09-10/Addl. CIT, R-3/VSP/12-13, dated 28/09/2012arising out of the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2005-06 and u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2007-08. Since the assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal involving the similar issues and therefore, both these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Firstly, we shall take up ITA No.431/Viz/2012 (AY: 2005-06) as a lead appeal: 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company carrying the business of production and sale of censors, instruments and other related products which are used in Steel Industry, filed its return of income on 01/11/2005 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,74,72,3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO which was challenged by appellant on the ground that intimation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 is not permissible merely on the basis of change of opinion because the AO for subsequent AY 2006 -07 had taken a view that weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) cannot be allowed. 3. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field trials incurred at Rourkela (on the ground that the same was not covered under the definition of approved in-house R & D house and this is presently the subject matter of litigation before the Hon'ble AP High Court), the Ld. AO was not justified in denying even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dress was not mentioned in the Form-3CM and Form-3CL. The Ld. AR pleaded that the assessee may be allowed the normal deduction which was not disputed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR fully supported the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and pleaded to uphold the same. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record as well as the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Admittedly, there is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has incurred expenditure on research activities which was approved by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. The relevant Form-3CM and Form-3CL are reproduced herein below for reference: From From-3CL, we find that the total expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent of Rs. 1,05,85,292/- claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act on the ground that appellant was not carrying on research activity at the address [9-30-4, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam-530003] mentioned in Form 3CL / 3CM issued by the Department of Science & Industrial Research (DSIR), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, but incurred part of the expenditure at Kalunga, Rourkela. Such disallowance has resulted in additional tax liability and interest thereon. 2. Even assuming (without admitting) that appellant was not eligible for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenditure towards field trials incurred at Rourkela (on the ground that the same was not covered under the definition of appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
