TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Year (A.Y) 1999-2000 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset itself, it was pointed out that the grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is with respect to levy of penalty for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income pertaining to excess deduction claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.50,17,054/- u/s 80IA of the Act on account of non allocation of R&D expenses of the same amount to its unit in Silvassa eligible to such deduction. It was pointed out that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing pharmaceutical products and its unit in Silvassa was eligible for and had claimed deduction of its profits u/s 80IA of the Act. The quantum of deduction so claimed had been reduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or non-allocation of R&D expenditure to the eligible units." 4. The arguments of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee were to the effect- * That all particulars of the R&D expenses incurred were truly disclosed by the assessee, its claim for not allocating any expenses was bonafide being in accordance with judicial decisions in this regard to the effect that in the absence of direct nexus established between the said expenses and manufacturing activity no expenses can be allocated. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 350 ITR 366 (Bom). * That in any case it was a debatable issue. * that on the matter of allocation of R&D exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formulation business carried out in the units eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. Accordingly, the assessee's own expert in A.Y. 1995-96 had given an opinion that 10% of R&D expenses should be treated as pertaining to formulation business. However, the appellant with clear cut intention to claim more deduction u/s. 80IA has not debited any R&D expenses in eligible unit. The Assessing Officer has allocated R&D expenses of Rs.50,17,034/- to eligible unit located in Silvassa and reduced the deduction u/s. 80IA. From this factual position, it is clear that there was no dispute regarding incurring of expenses on R&D pertaining to eligible units, yet the appellant did not debit any R&D expenses in the eligible units, consciously with a view to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is an established legal position that when tax is charged on the basis of book profit u/s. 115JA, the addition/disallowances made to book profit are liable for imposition of penalty u/s, 271(l)(c). In this regard reliance is placed on the decision in the cases of SBI DFHI Ltd, Vs. ACIT (2016) 71 taxmann.com 178 (Mum-ITAT), Shri Gokulam Hotels India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT (201.4) 49 taxrnann.com 543 (Mad-HC) and CIT Vs. Citi Tiles Ltd. (2014) 46 taxmann.com 344 (Guj-HC). Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA at Rs.50,17,034/- is confirmed. Hence, Ground No. 5 is dismissed. 6. We have heard both the parties. Penalty for conce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee as being totally incorrect in law. The same has to be established from the facts of the case whether the R&D expenses actually had nexus with the manufacturing activity of the units. For the same reason the acceptance by the assessee of the allocation in preceding years does not establish that its claim was totally unfounded. Further even the said technical personnel has only stated that 10% expenses are in relation to formulation activity. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay high court this in itself is not sufficient to allocate such expenses to the Sivassa Unit. Moreover it is ultimately only an estimation of expenses to be allocated and not a finding of actual expenses so incurred not claimed by the assessee. 8. The asse....