Tribunal upholds disallowances, rejects adjournment requests, restricts deductions, and supports expense allocation.

The tribunal upheld various disallowances, citing the assessee's failure to provide required evidence and comply with legal provisions. It rejected adjournment requests to prevent judicial time wastage. Disallowed claims included weighted deduction on R&D expenditure, seed marketing expenses, interest on funds invested in other companies, and previous year expenses. The tribunal also restricted disallowances under Sections 40(a)(ia) and 14A, and upheld allocation of R&D expenses for Section 80IB deduction. Additionally, it supported the deletion of an addition under Section 145A and allowed the deduction of employees' share of PF if paid before the return filing due date.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Adjournment Requests
2. Disallowance of Weighted Deduction on R&D Expenditure
3. Disallowance of Seed Marketing Expenses
4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia)
5. Disallowance under Section 14A
6. Disallowance of Hire Charges
7. Disallowance of Petty Repair Expenses
8. Disallowance of Interest on Funds Invested in Other Companies
9. Disallowance of Previous Year Expenses
10. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB
11. Allocation of R&D Expenditure for Section 80IB Deduction
12. Addition under Section 145A
13. Disallowance of Provident Fund Dues

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Adjournment Requests:
The tribunal rejected the adjournment request by the assessee due to the history of multiple adjournments (over 22 times) and the final opportunity given on 17.4.2014. The tribunal emphasized that adjournments should not lead to wastage of judicial time.

2. Disallowance of Weighted Deduction on R&D Expenditure:
The assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) was disallowed due to the failure to furnish the order of the prescribed authority in Form No. 3CM. The tribunal upheld the disallowance, referencing the assessee's inability to provide necessary evidence.

3. Disallowance of Seed Marketing Expenses:
The tribunal found that the nature of expenditure should determine its allowability. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness and nature of the seed marketing expenses and allow them if they are of a revenue nature.

4. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 37,50,152 under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar, which held that Section 40(a)(ia) applies to amounts paid or payable.

5. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The tribunal noted that Rule 8D is applicable from AY 2008-09. For earlier years, a reasonable disallowance should be made. It restricted the disallowance to Rs. 5 lakhs for the relevant assessment year.

6. Disallowance of Hire Charges:
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 37,977 paid to Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. for vehicle loan interest, citing Section 2(28A) which includes any service fee or other charge in respect of borrowed money.

7. Disallowance of Petty Repair Expenses:
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 55,275 for petty repair expenses due to the assessee's failure to provide evidence of TDS deduction.

8. Disallowance of Interest on Funds Invested in Other Companies:
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 7,90,400 for interest on funds invested in sister concerns, as the assessee failed to prove commercial expediency for the advances.

9. Disallowance of Previous Year Expenses:
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 10,71,907 for previous year expenses, as the assessee could not prove that these expenses crystallized during the relevant assessment year.

10. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80IB:
The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 10,98,682 related to other income, as these amounts were not derived from the industrial undertaking, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT.

11. Allocation of R&D Expenditure for Section 80IB Deduction:
The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allocate R&D expenses based on actual expenditure incurred by the eligible unit, following the method consistently used by the assessee in previous years.

12. Addition under Section 145A:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 145A, following the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd.

13. Disallowance of Provident Fund Dues:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction of employees' share of PF if payments were made before the due date of filing the return, following the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in CIT v. Nuchem Ltd.

Conclusion:
The tribunal's judgment addressed multiple issues, emphasizing the importance of evidence and adherence to legal provisions. The tribunal upheld several disallowances due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary documentation and justified the rejection of repeated adjournment requests to prevent judicial time wastage.

---