TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessee at the very outset submitted that the facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals are identical and similar in nature. The Ld. DR also conceded to these facts. 3. Having heard both the parties herein, these cases were heard together and disposed of vide this consolidated order. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in both these appeals, Ground No.3 is general in nature and hence, calls for no adjudication. 5. That further, Ground No.2 in both the aforesaid appeals, the assessee is not pressing this ground. After recording the submissions, we dismiss Ground No.2 as not pressed in respect of both the appeals. 6. The only effective ground for adjudication in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,03,317/- was allowed as deduction @100% u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act. Thus, total deduction u/s.35(2AB) and u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act was Rs. 7,95,14,089/- and the balance claim of Rs. 54,03,317/- was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 8. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) vide Para 5.3 of his order on this issue relying on his own decision in assessee‟s case for assessment year 2011-12 had decided the ground against the assessee. The detailed reasoning and the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) are already on record. 9. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that this issue has been consistently held in favour of the assessee in assessee‟s own case for asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DSIR has given approval up to an extent of Rs. 2,79,81,000/- and assessee is entitled for deduction at the rate of 200% to an extent of Rs. 5,59,62,000/- and on remaining amount Rs. 1,28,26,762/- (Rs. 6,87,88,762/- - Rs. 5,59,62,000/-) disallowed @ 100% to an extent of Rs. 64,13,344/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same. The contention of ld. AR is that the Rule 6(7A)(b) came into effect from 01-07-2016 wherein under sub-rule (ii) of (b) of (7A) requires the assessee to quantify the expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility. He submits that since the assessment year under consideration is 2011-12 the (ii) of (b)(7A) of Rule 6 is not applicable. He brought to our notice on similar identical facts, this Tribunal allowed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is allowed." 11. In the similar facts and circumstances, the Ld. DR for these assessment years also i.e. A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15, did not dispute the observation made by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13(supra.) 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further brought to the notice of the Bench that same view has been taken by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore in ITA No.641/Bang/2017 dated 14th September, 2018 wherein the Tribunal has observed and held as follows: "20. From the above discussion it is clear that prior to 1.7.2016 Form 3CL had no le....