TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of manufacturing of aluminum radiators, Heater Core, fuel delivery module and exhaust gas recirculation for automobile industry. During the relevant assessment year assessee has claimed a 200% deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act on account of expense incurred on in-house Research & Development facility amounting to Rs. 2,68,23,495/- relating to Revenue expenditure and Rs. 1,87,94,736/- relating to Capital expenditure in relation to in house scientific research. Thus, the total deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 35(2AB) during F/Y 11-12 is Rs. 4,56,18,231/-. The assessee company vide notice dated 15th February, 2016 was required to furnish the details of the said expenses incurred on in-house Research & Development facility and was also required to prove that the company is eligible to claim the deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. Further, they were asked to furnish the agreement entered by the company with Ministry of Science & Technologies for cooperation in such research and development facility. Further, in the said notice the assessee company was asked to furnish complete documentary evidences relating to revenue expenditure and capital expenditure on R&D and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he R&D expenditure incurred after 16.03.2012 upto 31.03.2012 would be eligible for weighed deduction. You are requested to segregate your accounts accordingly." 2.5 Thus, from the above it is amply clear that for the F/Y 11-12 the assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 35(2AB) only for the R&D expenditure incurred after 16.03.2012 and not entitled to claim deduction u/s 35(2AB) for the expenditure incurred on in house research facility during the period 01.04.2011 to 15.03.2012. Further, the assessee company has not provided any details/documentary evidences of any revenue & capital expenditure on in house R&D for claiming deduction u/s 35(2AB). In response to our query and show cause notice the assessee company has chosen not furnish any explanation and documentary evidence with regard to same. The assessee in its written submission has only referred to the relevant extract of Tax Audit Report. 2.6 In spite of various opportunities granted to the assessee company, the Assessee has failed to place on record any Documentary evidence with regard to same. The assessee failed to justify its claim on account of above mentioned expenses and failed to produce the copy of any ledger....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enefit u/s 35(2AB), what is relevant is not the date of recognition or the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate of DSIR or even the date of approval, rather the existence thereof shall be sufficient. The jurisdictional Hon'ble Delhi High Court has recorded similar findings in the case of Sandan Vikas (supra), which further follows the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Lifesciences (supra). 5.5 Based on the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it is evident that for the purpose of section 35(2AB) of the Act, the availability of the tax approval in Form 3CM is sufficient compliance of the conditions prescribed in section 35(2AB), provided other conditions are satisfied, and the cutoff date/ validity period mentioned in such approval shall not be relevant to claim the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB). As held by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Delhi High Court, what is relevant is not the date of approval or the cut-off date, but the mere existence of the tax approval. 5.6 The Ld. AO has not recorded any adverse findings as regards non-satisfaction of the other conditi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the approval is not relevant to the claim of deduction us/ 35(2AB) is at best applicable only in cases where both the date of application and the date of approval by the competent authority fell within the same previous year as held by Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s PCP Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ITO in ITA NO. 4381/Mum/2015, dated 11.11.2017, whereas in the present case, the assessee applied for approval on 29.03.2012 and the approval was granted on 12.03.2013. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,32,588/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(l)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of employees' contribution towards EPF/ESI 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, add or forgo by ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal." 6. Heard and perused the record. At the outset it be noted that in regard to ground no. 2 Ld. AR conceded that after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the issue is no more res integra and settled against the a....