GRP LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4525/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: him was not adjudicated though details of the said expenditure were also provided.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee submitted that the Appellant/Assessee has filed application under the ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024′ opting for settlement and has received the Certificate in Form 2 [Acknowledgement Number 898854431110325]. In view of the aforesaid, as requested by the Appellant/Assessee, the the pres1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Assessee had filed an application under The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, for settlement.

What were the facts?

The Assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against the assessment order. The CIT(A) had disallowed a deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) for R&D expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the deduction under Section 35(2AB) for R&D expenses was allowable and whether the same could be allowed under Section 37(1) without weighted deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 35(2AB),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G” BENCH, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. GRP Limited 510, Wing A, Kohinoor City, Commercial-I, Kirol Road, Off. L.B.S. Marg, Kurla West Mumbai – 400070, Maharashtra. [PAN: AAHCM1424C] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai 460, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400020. Maharashtra …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Apurva R. Shah For the Respondent/Department : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh Date Conclusion of hearing : 26.03.2025 Pronouncement of order : 27.03.2025 O R D E R

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order, dated 19/07/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,[hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 12/04/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018- 2019.

2.

The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. Erred in holding that the deduction u/s.35(2AB) for Assessment Year: 2018-2019 expenditure incurred at the in house Research and Development Centre of the appellant must be capped at the amount certified by the DSIR in form 3CL and hence disallowed a sum of Rs.32,91,021.

2. Without prejudice, erred in not allowing the said expenditure of Rs.21,94,004 u/s. 37(1) as it was nonetheless an expense incurred for the running business of the appellant even if not entitled to a weighted deduction. This plea was raised before him was not adjudicated though details of the said expenditure were also provided.”

3.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee submitted that the Appellant/Assessee has filed application under the ‘The Direct Tax – Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024’ opting for settlement and has received the Certificate in Form 2 [Acknowledgement Number 898854431110325]. In view of the aforesaid, as requested by the Appellant/Assessee, the the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 35(2AB)

All 842 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(2AB) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →