TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....air, CGC, Sri. P.K. Ravindranatha Menon (Sr.), Sri. Jose Joseph, Sc, Income Tax Department, Kerala. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Exts.P7, P12 and P14 issued by the 2nd respondent with reference to the provisions of Section 35 (2AB) (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts are as under:- The petitioner is a Public Listed Company engaged in the Manufacture and sale of Ossein, Gelatin and other Proteins. The petitioner is stated to have two units in the State of Kerala and one unit in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The petitioner contends that it is eligible for the benefits extended under Section 35 (2AB) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he submitted Ext. P11 before the 2nd respondent dated 16.02.2017, claiming the benefits under the afore section with respect to an investment of Rs.332.31 lakhs. A reading of Ext. P11 would show that the petitioner submitted it, presumably on the basis of the advice contained in Ext. P10 minutes directing them to make a claim for the financial year 2015-16. The 2nd respondent considered the claim and came out with Ext. P12, taking a U-turn and informing the petitioner that the certification under Form 3CL can only be with respect to the "expenditure incurred in the particular year" and insofar as the amounts pointed out were expanded during the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, the same cannot be considered for extension of bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner for claiming the benefits under the section, with respect to the investments carried out from the financial year 2014-15 onwards. With respect to the afore claim, two findings are recorded in Ext. P10. Firstly, it is recorded that the Managing Director of the petitioner agreed that they will not seek revision of the Form 3CL for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. Secondly, it is stated that as per the guidelines applicable to the 2nd respondent, "work-in-progress" is not to be considered for the deductions available under the afore Section for the assessment year during which the actual expenditure was made. The suggestion of the 2nd respondent that it is for the petitioner to make a claim for 2015-16 when the actual conversio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be considered with reference to the provisions of the statute. Section 35 (2AB) (1) reads as under: - "Where a company engaged in the business of bio-technology or in any business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, not being an article or thing specified in the list of the Eleventh Schedule incurs any expenditure on scientific research (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building) on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority, then, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum equal to two times of the expenditure so incurred." A reading of the afore section would show that a Company engaged in the business of manufacture of any article or a thing, not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....55 ITR 395], wherein a Division Bench of the Court with reference to provisions of Section 35(1) (iv), also took a similar view. 11. In the light of the afore findings, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have been extended the benefits with respect to the actual year in which the expenditure was incurred. 12. Furthermore, I notice that the petitioner submitted Ext. P11 solely on account of the advice they received as seen recorded in Ext. P10. When such an advice was received, and the petitioner acted on that basis, the petitioner cannot be found fault with if ultimately it is found that it is for the petitioner to claim the benefits with reference to the actual year in which the expenditure was incurred. In that view of the....