TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Kochi/Revenue is the respondent in both the appeals. 2.1 The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal and the authorities under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') filed the instant two appeals. The details of the Assessment Years, Orders etc. are stated in the following tabular form: Sl. No. Assessment Year & Date of Assessment Order Order of Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITA No. 1 2006-07; dtd.31.03.2015 ITA NO.44/R-1/E/CIT(A)-I/2015-16 DT.26.03.2018 ITA NO.339/COCH/2018 DTD 21.03.2019 225/2019 2 2007-08; dtd.31.03.2015 ITA NO.43/R-1/CIT(A)-I/2015-16 DT.31.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporating the following condition: "The above Research and Development facility is approved for the purpose of Section 35(2AB) from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010, subject to the conditions underlined therein (approval for Financial Year 2007-08 is recommended only for the purpose of claiming weight deduction on capital expenditure on R&D equipment)." 3.1. The Assessing Officer noted that on 21.08.2008 the agreement stipulated by clause (iii) of Section 35(2AB) of the Act was entered into by the assessee. Therefore, the important stipulation for availing weighted deduction has been complied with on 21.08.2008. The Assessing Officer for two reasons declined the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 35(2AB), namely the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntres having valid recognition by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, would, as a normal rule, be considered from the first of April of the year in which the application is made in Form 3CK. He submitted that in the present case, the application in Form 3CK was made on 21.08.2008 and, therefore, in terms of these guidelines, the approval would normally have been granted from 01.04.2008. However, in view of the guideline prescribed in Clause (vi) of para 6, a beneficial provision has been made so as to extend the approval of an in-house research and development centre to the previous year, but limited only to capital expenditure (excluding any capital expenditure on land and buildings). It is for this reason, according to M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already mentioned that part 'B' of the said form comprises of the said agreement. Such an agreement is a condition precedent to the kind of approval, for the purposes of deduction, which the petitioner is seeking. This condition was only met on 21.08.2008. Therefore, the petitioner's plea that it ought to have been granted approval with effect from 01.04.2004 and not with effect from 01.04.2007 is not acceptable. 10. Insofar as the plea that the approval has been granted for the financial year 2007-2008 only for capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure, is concerned, we agree with the submissions made by Mr. Chandhiok that the benefit would not have normally accrued to the petitioner for the financial year 2007-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lling the requirements of the Section. This argument need not be considered for the reasons that the assessee, on the strength of a right in its favour or infirmity in the stipulation of period by DSIR, availed the writ remedy. The prayers of assessee were rejected. The result is that the conclusion recorded against the assessee by the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 13338/2009 bars the assessee from re-agitating the same issue in subject assessment proceedings. The request of the assessee was to give approval with effect from 01.04.2004. For available reasons, and now approved by the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 13338/2009, it has been granted with effect from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010. This conclusion is confirmed by the Delhi High Court. The effort of....