TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax under section 115JB of the Act. The return of the assessee was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore under section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(1) of the Act by determining the deemed income from books under section 115JB of the Act at Rs..26,94,762/- as against Rs..17,73,408/- admitted by the assessee. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering various details and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the ground raised by the assessee by reducing the correct amount of book profit under section 115JB of the Act from Rs..26,94,762/- to Rs..21,41,110/-. 4. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and by filing various documents, in the form of paper book, as filed before the authorities below and pleaded that the book profits should be accepted at Rs..17,73,408/- as computed by the assessee under section 115JB of the Act. Further the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly argued that FBT is an allowable deduction in the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act as per CBDT circular 8 of 2005 dated 29.08.2005, but the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 115JB of the Act as per CBDT circular 8 of 2005 dated 29.08.2005 and perused the same. In the case of ITO v. Vintage Distillers Ltd. (2010) 130 TTJ (Del) 79, the Delhi Benches of ITAT has held as under: "In the light of above discussion regarding statutory provision on this issue, now we examine the contentions raised by the learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue that when the language of the section is clear, no reference is required to Explanatory Note or Board's circular. We are of the considered opinion that this contention of the learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue does not have any relevance in the present case because we have seen that in the present case, the provisions of Expln. 1 to s. 115JB are clear and as per these provisions, payment or provision for "FBT" is not required to be added back for the purpose of computing book profit under s. 115JB of the Act because we have seen that the term used in this clause of Explanation is "income-tax", which does not include "FBT" and in spite of this fact that there is a term "tax" already on the statute book, which includes "FBT" also, the legislature has not used that term and has used the te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Vintage Distillers Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhushan Steel Ltd. (supra), we, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the fringe benefit tax of Rs..3,40,702/- for arriving the net profit for the purpose of computation of income under section 115JB of the Act. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. I.T.A. No. 153/Mds/2015: [A.Y. 2011-12] 10. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs..64,52,570/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and after issue of notices under section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by making addition of Rs..87,97,204/-. 11. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has not filed Form 3CL from the DSIR for claiming deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Therefore, by following the decision of Mumbai Benches of ITAT in the case of USV Ltd. v. DCIT, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction made by the assessee. 12. On appeal, the AR of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t available with the assessee/company shows that the Prescribed Authority has not satisfied with the in-house R&D activity carried out by the company for claiming the allowable expenditure of capital and revenue nature under section 35(2AB) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee has filed only recognition from DSIR and not approval under Form 3CL from the Prescribed Authority to the DGIT[E] for allowing the claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 16. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision in the case of ACIT v. Meco Instruments P. Ltd. in I.T.A.No. 4246/Mum/2009 dated 20.08.2010. In the above case, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act for the following reasons: i) The assessee had not made application to the prescribed authority i.e. Secretary, DSIR in the prescribed Form 3CK. ii) The assessee had accepted that it had not obtained order from the prescribed authority in Form 3CM. iii) The assessee had not obtained report submitted by the prescribed authority to DG(Exemption) in for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals with the manner in which a statutory authority bestowed with powers has to conduct itself. He observed that since no order of rejection has been passed by the competent authority in accordance with the prescribed rules, a contrary view has to be taken that the assessee's application has been accepted. Under the above facts and circumstances and also by following the decision of Ahmedabad Bench, the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 17. However, in the instant case, the assessee could not file any details with regard to filing of application before the Prescribed Authority i.e. Secretary, DSIR or filed the approval of the Prescribed Authority to DGIT[E] in Form 3CL, either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal for admitting the claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Therefore, the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Meco Instruments P. Ltd. has no application to the facts of the present case. 18. In the case of Aarti Industries Ltd. v. Addl.CIT in I.T.A. No. 8387/Mum/2004 & Others dated 30.03.2012, ....