Appeal allowed for fresh examination of claim on merits following rejection of expenditure on Trips schemes.

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the claim on its merits in accordance with the law, providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. The issue revolves around the rejection of the assessee's claim regarding expenditure on Trips schemes not liable for FBT based on CBDT circular 8/2005, with reference to relevant case law.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of rejection of claim made by the assessee during assessment regarding expenditure on Trips schemes not liable for FBT based on CBDT circular 8/2005.

Comprehensive details of the judgment for each issue involved:

1. The issue in this appeal pertains to the assessee's claim of Rs. 30.58 million, initially included in the computation of FBT u/s 115WB but later claimed as not includable during assessment. The CIT(A) rejected the claim based on the decision in Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 and ITO vs. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. 312 ITR 1 (AT) (Mum)(SB).

2. The assessee contended that the Trips scheme expenditure should be excluded from FBT as per the CBDT circular 8/2005. The claim was not considered by the A.O. or the CIT(A) on its merits. The counsel referred to a similar claim allowed by ITAT in the assessee's case for A.Y. 2003-04 and requested the issue to be reconsidered.

3. The Coordinate Bench in the assessee's case for AY 2003-04 discussed the powers of the CIT(A) to admit claims without a revised return, citing the decision in Goetze India Ltd. The Bench concluded that the CIT(A) has the power to consider the claim on merits and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for examination.

4. Considering the above decision, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the claim on its merits in accordance with the law, providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties.

---