TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax (Appeals) 6 filed to distinguish the judgment in the case of PHL Pharma (P) Ltd. ITA 4605/Mum./2014 and failed to relate this case to that of appellant. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 summarily accepted the order of assessing officer with detailing any reasons to justify the same. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 also erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant u/s 35(2) relating to Research and Development, without getting into details of the claim. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 was wrong to state that appellant had agreed to the addition and failed to note that the appellant furnished all the justification for the claim. 7. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 failed to issue a speaking order and also skipped to go in to the details of claim. 8. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6 and the assessing officer did not appreciate the fact that the approval of the R&D is the criterions and shall relate to any particular year. 9. The appellant rely on the judgment Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. ITA 348/2011 among other decisions to support the claim of the appellant. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide reasons, which can be considered for condonation of delay and hence, appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Having heard both sides and considered the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the Act comes under reasonable cause as provided under the Act for condonation of delay and hence, delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of harmless medicines, filed its return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 9,35,97,686/-. The assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 27.12.2016 and determined total income of Rs. 13,46,47,790/- by making various additions including additions towards sales promotion expenses u/s. 37(1) of the Act, towards freebies paid to Doctors amounting to Rs. 21,08,795/-, disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 35(1) & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee u/s. 35(1) of the Act on the ground that the R&D facility was approved only from the period 26.12.2014 to 31.03.2015 which is not covered in the impugned assessment year. When this mistake was brought to notice of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee has agreed for the disallowance and accordingly, claim of deduction u/s. 35(2) & 35(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 75,69,617/- is disallowed. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to certain judicial precedence submitted that when facility has been approved by the Competent Authority for deduction u/s. 35(1) & (2) of the Act for subsequent period, then R&D expenditure incurred by the assessee for earlier period cannot be disallowed. We find that the R&D facility of the assessee has been approved by the Competent Authority in terms of relevant provisions for the period 26.12.2014 to 31.03.2015, which is beyond the period of impugned assessment year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee is not entitled for claiming deduction towards R&D expenditure u/s. 35(2) & 35(1) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind no merit in reasons given by the AO for simple reason that as per law, the assessee is entitled for additional depreciation of 20% of new assets put to use, if certain conditions are satisfied. In this case, the AO accepted the fact that the assessee has satisfied conditions prescribed for additional depreciation. However, not allowed remaining 50% depreciation claimed on new asset in the subsequent financial year. In our considered view, the assessee is entitled for 20% additional depreciation on new assets and if assessee claims 50% of additional depreciation in one financial year owing to the purchase and use of said asset for less than 180 days as per law, then remaining 50% of additional depreciation should be given in the next financial year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO is erred in disallowing additional depreciation on assets and thus, we direct the AO to delete additions made towards disallowance of additional depreciation. 13. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 12 to 14 of assessee's appeal is re-computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. The assessee has debited provision for leave encashment and provis....