TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Chennai dated 08.12.2017, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai 600 034, dated 27.04.2017. 2. The facts narrated briefly for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. The appellant / assessee is registered at Chennai and engaged in the business of manufacturing of seating systems for automobiles. The assessee has filed its Original Return of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (Financial Year 2012-13) admitting total income of Rs. 7,18,79,936/- and subsequently filed its Revised Return of Income for the said Assessment Year admitting an income of Rs. 7,16,15,936/-. The said return was processed Under Section 143(1) of the IT Act, and selected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....69,504/-. 2.4. The assessee challenging the legality of the said order, preferred a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), at Chennai. The ITAT, vide impugned order date 08.12.2017, on facts found that the appellant/assessee is having its units set up in Pune, Hosur, Bangalore and Himachal Pradesh and all the undertakings are doing the same business as that of manufacturing of seats and Seating Systems and it claimed deduction on the Research and Development expenditure under Section 35(AB2) against the income from the units of Hosur, Pune, Bangalore only. The ITAT also found that the benefits of the Research done by the Hosur unit is availed by all the units of the assessee and consequently, the Research and Dev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and Development done by the Hosur Unit is also availed by the unit at Himachal Pradesh, for which there was no tenable and substantial material, except the Assessment Officer's own presumption. 4.2.The certification given by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, which enabled the assessee to claim exemption would also disclose that the benefit of Research and Development done by the Hosur Unit is being availed by the Unit at Himachal Pradesh and the Assessing Officer, CIT(Appeals) as well as ITAT merely went on presumption and acted on conjectures and surmises. 4.3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following decisions. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome generated by the unit at Himachal Pradesh, by citing the reason that the benefit of Research and Development having been availed by the said unit and it is also convincing and logical for the reason that income expenditure has to be apportioned by all the manufacturing units and any deduction is to be only on the net income. It is further submitted by the learned standing Counsel for the Revenue that the findings of the CIT(appeals) and ITAT are concurrent in nature and therefore, there are no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal and prays for dismissal of the same. 6. This Court has carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e units have their own separate R&D departments, including laboratories and also placed reliance upon (2005) 273 ITR 152 and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. 8. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. ECS Ltd., reported in (2010) 194 Taxman 311 (Delhi High Court Division Bench), it is settled position of law that the deduction is to be allowed only on net income for the purpose of assessing tax and not on actual amount. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee are distinguishable on facts. It is not in dispute that the appellant is hav....