TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the Revenue has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 22 days on the part of the Revenue in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any objection in this regard. The delay of 22 days in filing this appeal by the Revenue is accordingly condoned and this appeal of the Revenue is being disposed of on merit. 4. Grounds No. 1 to 5 (revised) involve the inter-linked issues relating to the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) and section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the same read as under:- "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in allowing fresh alternative claim in respect of capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 8,06,080/- on account of construction of Laboratory building u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.1961 where the same has been otherwise claimed under the section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.1961 in the ITR. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in allowing the claim of weighted deduction of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of India (competent authority) that approval for the purpose of deduction under section 35(2AB) was granted to the assessee only to the extent of expenditure incurred on capital assets for the purpose of research and development facilities, which was other than the expenditure on land and building. He accordingly held that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction @ 200% in respect of the revenue expenditure of Rs. 2,59,90,238/- incurred on scientific research. He accordingly disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 35(2AB) to the extent of Rs. 2,76,02,398/- (Rs. 2,59,90,238/- + Rs. 16,12,160/-). He also disallowed the alternative claim of the assessee for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of capital expenditure of Rs. 8,06,080/- incurred on the construction of Laboratory Building on the ground that such claim was not made by the assessee either in the return of income originally filed or by way of filing revised return. To arrive at this conclusion, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited [284 ITR 323]. 6. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction @ 200% on Revenue expenditure incurred in respect of two in-house units at Bangalore Factory of the appellant. The revenue expenditure on scientific research and development works amounting to Rs. 2,59,903/- which is debited in profit & loss A/c having been allowed by AO, the appellant is aggrieved for weighted deduction equivalent to identical amount which has been rejected. 5.3. I have perused the audit report of the Chartered Accountant certifying the maintenance of separate accounts of Research & Development works through two in-house units. The Revenue expenditure incurred under different heads as certified by Auditor is tabulated as follows: Unit-I Unit-II Total Salary & Wages (In lacs) Rs. 29.11 Rs. 86.39 Rs. 115.50 Materials consumable stores (In Lacs) Rs. 18.61 Rs. 94.35 Rs. 112.96 Electricity - Rs. 3.23 Rs. 3.23 Other Expenditure - Rs. 28.21 Rs. 28.21 Total Rs. 47.72 Rs. 212.18 Rs. 259.90 I have also perused Form 3CM granting approval of in-house Research & Development facility U/s 35(2AB) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April 2009 upto 31st March 2012. The said approval shows....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is observed that the alternative claim of the assessee for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act in respect of capital expenditure of Rs. 8,06,080/- incurred on construction of the Laboratory Building was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the said claim was not made by the assessee either in the return of income originally filed or by way of filing revised return. For this conclusion, he derived support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra). As clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Limited (supra) itself, the appellate authority like the CIT(Appeals) can entertain any new claim of the assessee, such as the claim for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) even when the same was not made by the assessee in the return of income originally filed or by way of filing revised return. The ld. CIT(Appeals), in our opinion, therefore, was fully justified in entertaining the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act and allowing the same on merit by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Cochin in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Sandan Vikas (India) Limited (335 ITR 117). 10. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material available on record, we find that this issue relating to the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sandan Vikas (India) Limited (supra), wherein it was held as under:- "What is to be seen is that the assessee was indulging in research and development activity and had incurred the expenditure thereupon. Once a certificate by the DSIR is issued that would be sufficient to hold that the assessee fulfils the conditions laid down in the aforesaid provisions. The lower authorities are reading more than what is provided by law. A plain and simple reading of the Act provides that on approval of the research and development facility, expenditure so incurred is eligible for weighted deduction The Tribunal has considered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and took the view t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals) in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,19,614/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 13. During the year under consideration, the assessee-company had earned dividend income of Rs. 1,850/-, which was claimed to be exempt from tax. The disallowance of Rs. 1,02,481/- was also offered by the assessee under section 14A on account of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of the said exempt income. The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D to work out the expenditure incurred by the assesese in relation to the exempt income at Rs. 5,22,095/- and made a further disallowance of Rs. 4,19,614/- under section 14A. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A by applying Rule 8D for the following reasons given in paragraph no. 6.2 of his impugned order:- "6.2. I have gone through the contentions of the AR of the appellant and various judicial decisions relied upon in this regard. It is a fact that dividend income earned and claimed as deduction was to the extent of Rs. 1,850/- only. It is also a fact on record that the appellant o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue's appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 relates to the deletion by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of the disallowance of Rs. 1,54,645/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Club expenses. 17. In the profit & loss account filed along with its return of income, a sum of Rs. 1,93,010/- was debited by the assessee on account of expenditure incurred at Clubs. In the computation of total income, the said expenditure to the extent of Rs. 38,365/- was disallowed by the assessee-company itself. According to the Assessing Officer, the entire expenditure incurred at Clubs by the assessee was of personal nature and the same was not allowable as business expenditure. He accordingly made a disallowance of Rs. 1,54,645/- on this issue. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Sundaran & Industries [158 CTR 437] and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pritam Hotels Pvt. Limited - vs.- ITO [17 TTJ 550]. The ld. CIT(Appeals) held that business expediency of the expenditure incurred at Clubs was established by the assessee and the claim of th....