Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee claimed additional depreciation on plant and machinery acquired in FY 2010-11 and put to use for less than 180 days. The assessee also claimed weighted deduction for R&D expenditure. The lower authorities disallowed these claims.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee is legally entitled to the balance 10% additional depreciation and directed its allowance. For the R&D expenditure, the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in curtailing the deduction and directed deletion of the disallowance.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee is entitled to additional depreciation and weighted deduction for R&D expenditure, and whether the appellate authorities can consider claims not made in the return of income.
Sections Cited
14A, 8D, 32(1)(iia), 35(2AB)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee-company against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi dated 19.07.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘)2012-13.
2. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature, which was therefore not pressed by the Ld. AR and is therefore dismissed.
Ground No. 2 is against the disallowance of u/s.14A of the Act read is against the disallowance of u/s.14A of the Act read is against the disallowance of u/s.14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [hereinaft of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [hereinafter referred to as er referred to as “the Rules”].
1. 3.1 Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee has earned exempt Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee has earned exempt Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.7,89,86,672/ income of Rs.7,89,86,672/- in relation to which the assessee had in relation to which the assessee had voluntarily offered disallowance of Rs.33,15,155/ voluntarily offered disallowance of Rs.33,15,155/- u/s 14A of the Act by u/s 14A of the Act by way of expenses incurred for earning such exempt income. The AO, in the rred for earning such exempt income. The AO, in the rred for earning such exempt income. The AO, in the course of assessment, is noted to have rejected the voluntary course of assessment, is noted to have rejected the voluntary course of assessment, is noted to have rejected the voluntary disallowance offered by the assessee and thereafter invoked Rule 8D. The disallowance offered by the assessee and thereafter invoked Rule 8D. The disallowance offered by the assessee and thereafter invoked Rule 8D. The AO accordingly computed disallowance of Rs.3,11,55,289/ AO accordingly computed disallowance of Rs.3,11,55,289/ AO accordingly computed disallowance of Rs.3,11,55,289/- by way of interest cost relatable to investments in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and terest cost relatable to investments in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and terest cost relatable to investments in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and disallowance of Rs.5,90,83,894/ disallowance of Rs.5,90,83,894/- by way of administrative expenses by way of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), thereby making aggregate disallowance of under Rule 8D(2)(iii), thereby making aggregate disallowance of under Rule 8D(2)(iii), thereby making aggregate disallowance of Rs.8,69,24,028/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to h . On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to h . On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) is noted to have confirmed the action of the AO. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. the action of the AO. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. the action of the AO. Now the assessee is in appeal before us.
3.2 Heard both the parties. Heard both the parties. It was brought to our notice that, the It was brought to our notice that, the assessee has own funds of Rs.420817.00 lacs as against investments of assessee has own funds of Rs.420817.00 lacs as against investments of assessee has own funds of Rs.420817.00 lacs as against investments of Rs.153435.22 lacs as on 31.03.2012. In lig Rs.153435.22 lacs as on 31.03.2012. In light of the aforesaid fact aforesaid fact, the assessee claimed that although it was in possession of mix funds, which although it was in possession of mix funds, which although it was in possession of mix funds, which included both own & borrowed funds, but included both own & borrowed funds, but since its own funds since its own funds were much higher than the investment made by it, higher than the investment made by it, the question of making the question of making disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds in terms of Rule terest paid on borrowed funds in terms of Rule terest paid on borrowed funds in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) didn’t arise. The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision The Ld. AR brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 366 ITR 505 wherein it was held that "where assessee's own "where assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than investment in interest bearing funds were more than investment in interest bearing funds were more than investment in tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer tax free securities, impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing a part of interest payments disallowing a part of interest payments under section 14A of the Act ( under section 14A of the Act (read with rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962 le 8D(2)(ii) of I.T Rules, 1962) needs to be set aside" eeds to be set aside". We also note that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 has laid the proposition laid the proposition of law that, when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing when there are both interest free funds and interest bearing funds, the presumption is that interest free funds were utilized for interest presumption is that interest free funds were utilized for interest presumption is that interest free funds were utilized for interest free investment and advances. nt and advances. Such a proposition of law has been upheld Such a proposition of law has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., reported in [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC) and , reported in [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC) and the Hon’ble Supreme the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT reported in [(2021) reported in [(2021)
130 taxmann.com 178 (SC)] reiterated the position of law and also 130 taxmann.com 178 (SC)] reiterated the position of law and also 130 taxmann.com 178 (SC)] reiterated the position of law and also clarified that it is the assessee who has the right to assert from which part clarified that it is the assessee who has the right to assert from which part clarified that it is the assessee who has the right to assert from which part of the mixed funds the investment was made, and the Revenue can’t he investment was made, and the Revenue can’t he investment was made, and the Revenue can’t arbitrarily estimate a proportionate figure for disallowance u/s.14A of the arbitrarily estimate a proportionate figure for disallowance u/s.14A of the arbitrarily estimate a proportionate figure for disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Thus, we note from the Thus, we note from the factual matrix discussed supra, that tual matrix discussed supra, that the assessee had total own funds more than Rs assessee had total own funds more than Rs 4208 crores and the tot crores and the total investment made only to the tune of Rs. investment made only to the tune of Rs. 1534 crores, including the fresh including the fresh investments of Rs.300 crores made during the year, therefore, investments of Rs.300 crores made during the year, therefore, investments of Rs.300 crores made during the year, therefore, the presumption laid down in the case laid down in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (supra) is clearly applicable is clearly applicable. The Ld. DR could not demonstrate that this d not demonstrate that this presumption is factually incorrect, therefore, presumption is factually incorrect, therefore, according to us, according to us, the disallowance made under Section 14Aread with llowance made under Section 14Aread with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, was not warranted Rules, was not warranted and is directed to be deleted.
3.3 Coming to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it is noted that the Coming to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it is noted that the Coming to disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), it is noted that the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. reported in [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (P.) Ltd. reported in [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415, has held that only , has held that only the dividend yielding investments are to be consi the dividend yielding investments are to be considered in computation of dered in computation of disallowance under this Rule. In this regard, the Ld. AR for the assessee disallowance under this Rule. In this regard, the Ld. AR for the assessee disallowance under this Rule. In this regard, the Ld. AR for the assessee also referred to the computation of disallowance in terms of Rule also referred to the computation of disallowance in terms of Rule also referred to the computation of disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) with reference to dividend yielding investments, which was 8D(2)(iii) with reference to dividend yielding investments, which was 8D(2)(iii) with reference to dividend yielding investments, which was placed before us. Having perused the same, it is noted that the exempt ng perused the same, it is noted that the exempt ng perused the same, it is noted that the exempt income was derived from investments having value of Rs.122,07,95,018/ income was derived from investments having value of Rs.122,07,95,018/ income was derived from investments having value of Rs.122,07,95,018/- whose 0.5% works out to Rs.61,03,975/ whose 0.5% works out to Rs.61,03,975/-. Having regard to the suo moto . Having regard to the suo moto disallowance of Rs.33,15,155/ disallowance of Rs.33,15,155/- already offered by the assessee, th already offered by the assessee, the further disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) comes to Rs.27,88,820/ further disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) comes to Rs.27,88,820/ further disallowance in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) comes to Rs.27,88,820/-.
Hence, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench (supra), t Hence, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench (supra), t Hence, respectfully following the decision of Special Bench (supra), the AO is directed to verify this computation provided by the assessee and verify this computation provided by the assessee and verify this computation provided by the assessee and re- compute the disallowance under se compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D ction 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) accordingly. This ground is therefore partly allowed. This ground is therefore partly allowed.
Ground No. 3 is against the disallowance of deduction claimed in Ground No. 3 is against the disallowance of deduction claimed in Ground No. 3 is against the disallowance of deduction claimed in respect of wealth tax of Rs.11,63,372/ of Rs.11,63,372/-.
4.1 At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t pre At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t pre At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee didn’t press this ground since in the assessee’s own case since in the assessee’s own case, this issue was decided , this issue was decided against the assessee in AY 2006-07 in 07 in and for AY 2011 for AY 2011-12 in . Therefore, this g ITA NO.362/Chny/2024. Therefore, this ground stands dismissed. ound stands dismissed.
Ground No. 4 is against the action Ground No. 4 is against the action of the lower authorities denying of the lower authorities denying the he he claim claim claim of of of balance balance balance additional additional additional depreciation depreciation depreciation amounting amounting amounting to to to Rs.15,71,32,419/- on the assets which were put to use in the earlier on the assets which were put to use in the earlier on the assets which were put to use in the earlier FY 2011-12.
5.1 The facts as noted are that, the assessee had acquired new plant & The facts as noted are that, the assessee had acquired new plant & The facts as noted are that, the assessee had acquired new plant & machinery in FY 2010-11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 11 which was eligible for additional depreciation @ 20% in terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant 20% in terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant 20% in terms of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Since the new plant &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2010 &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2010 &machinery was put to use for less than 180 days in FY 2010-11, the assessee had claimed 50% of the additional depreciation i.e. assessee had claimed 50% of the additional depreciation i.e. assessee had claimed 50% of the additional depreciation i.e. 10% [20% X 50%]. Further, according to the assessee, it was legally entitled to the 50%]. Further, according to the assessee, it was legally entitled to the 50%]. Further, according to the assessee, it was legally entitled to the balance 10% of the eligible additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the balance 10% of the eligible additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the balance 10% of the eligible additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act in the subsequent year i.e. relevant FY 2011 Act in the subsequent year i.e. relevant FY 2011-12. The assessee 12. The assessee however did not make this claim however did not make this claim in the return of income, but raised it in the return of income, but raised it before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment, who did not before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment, who did not before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment, who did not allow it. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal allow it. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal allow it. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that the impugned claim stood squarely before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that the impugned claim stood squarely before Ld. CIT(A) who observed that the impugned claim stood squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a series of judgments on this vered in favour of the assessee by a series of judgments on this vered in favour of the assessee by a series of judgments on this identical issue including jurisdictional Madras High Court in the cases of identical issue including jurisdictional Madras High Court in the cases of identical issue including jurisdictional Madras High Court in the cases of Brakes India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TCA No. 551 of 2013) Brakes India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TCA No. 551 of 2013) Brakes India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TCA No. 551 of 2013) and CIT Vs.
Hinduja Foundries Ltd. (281 Taxman 448) Hinduja Foundries Ltd. (281 Taxman 448) as well as deci as well as decisions rendered by this Tribunal in assessee’s own cases for earlier AYs 2009 rendered by this Tribunal in assessee’s own cases for earlier AYs 2009 rendered by this Tribunal in assessee’s own cases for earlier AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12. However, according to Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee had not 12. However, according to Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee had not 12. However, according to Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee had not raised this claim in the return of income, the AO had rightly denied the raised this claim in the return of income, the AO had rightly denied the raised this claim in the return of income, the AO had rightly denied the same as the Hon’ble Supreme Cou same as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goezte India Ltd Vs Goezte India Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) had prevented the AO from entertaining any new had prevented the AO from entertaining any new had prevented the AO from entertaining any new claim, which was otherwise not made in the return of income. The claim, which was otherwise not made in the return of income. The claim, which was otherwise not made in the return of income. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) taken note of is as under: relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) taken note of is as under: relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) taken note of is as under:-
“20.2 The strict interpretation of section 32(1)(iia) by the Department has not etation of section 32(1)(iia) by the Department has not etation of section 32(1)(iia) by the Department has not been accepted in several judicial decisions including the decision of accepted in several judicial decisions including the decision of accepted in several judicial decisions including the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Brakes India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TCA No. 551 of 2013 Court in Brakes India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TCA No. 551 of 2013 Court in Brakes India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (TCA No. 551 of 2013 (Madras) and CIT Vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. (2021) 28 (Madras) and CIT Vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd. (2021) 281 Taxman 448 1 Taxman 448 (Madras), since it is against the (Madras), since it is against the purpose for which the beneficial provisions purpose for which the beneficial provisions were introduced. In Appellant’s own case in AY 2005 In Appellant’s own case in AY 2005-06 and 2007-08 (in ITA 08 (in and ITA 2838/Mds/2014), in the order for miscellaneous no. 2836/Mds/2014 and ITA 2838/Mds/2014), in the order for miscellaneous no. 2836/Mds/2014 and ITA 2838/Mds/2014), in the order for miscellaneous petition dated 24.03.2017, the Hon’ble ITAT has upheld this claim, which has .03.2017, the Hon’ble ITAT has upheld this claim, which has .03.2017, the Hon’ble ITAT has upheld this claim, which has been followed by CIT(A) in AY 2009 been followed by CIT(A) in AY 2009-10 (ITA no. 21/CIT(A)-5/2013-14) and AY 14) and AY 2010-11 CIT(A), Chennai 11 CIT(A), Chennai-17/10740/2014-15 and AY 2011-12 (CIT(A), 12 (CIT(A), Chennai-17/10834/2015 17/10834/2015-16) as well. This issue is now squarely settled in arely settled in favour of the Appellant due to the favourable decisions of the jurisdictional favour of the Appellant due to the favourable decisions of the jurisdictional favour of the Appellant due to the favourable decisions of the jurisdictional courts and the decision in Appellant’s own case. courts and the decision in Appellant’s own case.
20.3 However, the only issue which needs to be deliberated is whether such a 20.3 However, the only issue which needs to be deliberated is whether such a 20.3 However, the only issue which needs to be deliberated is whether such a claim for additional depreciation claim for additional depreciation made by the Appellant during the course of made by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings is permissible, even if the claim was not originally assessment proceedings is permissible, even if the claim was not originally assessment proceedings is permissible, even if the claim was not originally made in the return of income or by way or revised return of income. The the return of income or by way or revised return of income. The the return of income or by way or revised return of income. The Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1 case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) has laid down that, 688 (SC) has laid down that, there are no explicit provisions in section 251 of there are no explicit provisions in section 251 of the Act which curtails the power of the Act which curtails the power of the CIT(A) to consider any additional claim the CIT(A) to consider any additional claim made by an assessee which was not made by an assessee which was not made in the return of income. In fact, made in the return of income. In fact, Supreme Court has laid down that the CIT(A)has an amplitude of power to urt has laid down that the CIT(A)has an amplitude of power to urt has laid down that the CIT(A)has an amplitude of power to consider any additional claim and this decision of the consider any additional claim and this decision of the Supreme Court has also Supreme Court has also been relied upon by the SC in another decision in M/s been relied upon by the SC in another decision in M/s.National Thermal Power National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) while upholding the power of income the power of income- tax Appellate Tribunal to consider an additional claim raised by tax Appellate Tribunal to consider an additional claim raised by the Appellant the Appellant before the ITAT, but not claimed in the return of income. before the ITAT, but not claimed in the return of income.
20.4 Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the above mentioned cases 20.4 Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the above mentioned cases 20.4 Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the above mentioned cases ruled that there are no explicit provision in section 251 of the act to curtail the t there are no explicit provision in section 251 of the act to curtail the t there are no explicit provision in section 251 of the act to curtail the power of the CIT(A) to consider any additional claim made by the assessee, CIT(A) to consider any additional claim made by the assessee, CIT(A) to consider any additional claim made by the assessee, which was not made in the return of income, in the return of income, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its latest decision in the ca its latest decision in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 se of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that the AO has no power to grant deduction for additional ITR 323 (SC) held that the AO has no power to grant deduction for additional ITR 323 (SC) held that the AO has no power to grant deduction for additional claim made during the assessment proceedings after such claims is not made claim made during the assessment proceedings after such claims is not made claim made during the assessment proceedings after such claims is not made in the return of income. Thus by corollary the same pri in the return of income. Thus by corollary the same principle applies to the nciple applies to the powers of CIT (A), in not admitting any additional claim during appellate powers of CIT (A), in not admitting any additional claim during appellate powers of CIT (A), in not admitting any additional claim during appellate proceeding. Thus the ground raised by the Appellant towards claim of proceeding. Thus the ground raised by the Appellant towards claim of proceeding. Thus the ground raised by the Appellant towards claim of additional depreciation of Rs. 15,71,32,419/ additional depreciation of Rs. 15,71,32,419/- is rejected. This ground of appeal is rejected. This ground of appeal is therefore dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) .” (emphasis supplied)
5.2 Being aggrieved by the above order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is Being aggrieved by the above order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is Being aggrieved by the above order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. now in appeal before us.
5.3 Having heard both the parties, we find that the merits of the Having heard both the parties, we find that the merits of the Having heard both the parties, we find that the merits of the impugned issue are not in dispute before us. It is noted th impugned issue are not in dispute before us. It is noted th impugned issue are not in dispute before us. It is noted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court (supra) as well as this Tribunal in jurisdictional Madras High Court (supra) as well as this Tribunal in jurisdictional Madras High Court (supra) as well as this Tribunal in assessee’s own case have held that, where new plant & machinery assessee’s own case have held that, where new plant & machinery assessee’s own case have held that, where new plant & machinery acquired in earlier year was put to use for less than 180 days by virtue of acquired in earlier year was put to use for less than 180 days by virtue of acquired in earlier year was put to use for less than 180 days by virtue of which 50% of the eligible 20% ad which 50% of the eligible 20% additional depreciation is allowed i.e. 10% ditional depreciation is allowed i.e. 10% in that year [FY 2010-11, in present case], then the assessee is legally 11, in present case], then the assessee is legally 11, in present case], then the assessee is legally entitled to the balance 10% of the additional depreciation on such newly entitled to the balance 10% of the additional depreciation on such newly entitled to the balance 10% of the additional depreciation on such newly acquired assets in the subsequent year [FY 2011 acquired assets in the subsequent year [FY 2011-12, in present case] 12, in present case].
Accordingly, in the present case before us, the balance 10% Accordingly, in the present case before us, the balance 10% Accordingly, in the present case before us, the balance 10% additional depreciation amounting to Rs. amounting to Rs.15,71,32,419/- needs to be allowed needs to be allowed in the relevant AY 2012-13.
5.4 The sole ground of the Ld. CIT(A) for denying the above claim was The sole ground of the Ld. CIT(A) for denying the above claim was The sole ground of the Ld. CIT(A) for denying the above claim was that, the assessee did not raise this claim in the return of income did not raise this claim in the return of income did not raise this claim in the return of income or by way of revised return and therefore the additional claim made otherwise, return and therefore the additional claim made otherwise, return and therefore the additional claim made otherwise, could not be entertained. We however are unable to countenance this could not be entertained. We however are unable to countenance this could not be entertained. We however are unable to countenance this finding of Ld. CIT(A). It is noted that the Hon’ble Supreme finding of Ld. CIT(A). It is noted that the Hon’ble Supreme finding of Ld. CIT(A). It is noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd (supra) Goetze India Ltd (supra) had made it clear that their decision had made it clear that their decision was restricted to the power of Assessing Authority to entertain a claim for was restricted to the power of Assessing Authority to entertain a claim for was restricted to the power of Assessing Authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by way of revised return, and it did not impinge deduction otherwise than by way of revised return, and it did not impinge deduction otherwise than by way of revised return, and it did not impinge the power of the appel the power of the appellate authority under Section 254 of the Act. late authority under Section 254 of the Act.
Instead, we find that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Instead, we find that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Vs CIT of NTPC Vs CIT (229 ITR 383) has held that if a claim is available in law which had not has held that if a claim is available in law which had not has held that if a claim is available in law which had not been raised inadvertently or on account of erroneous plea of comp been raised inadvertently or on account of erroneous plea of comp been raised inadvertently or on account of erroneous plea of complex legal position, then such relief cannot be shut for all times to come and legal position, then such relief cannot be shut for all times to come and legal position, then such relief cannot be shut for all times to come and that the appellate authority are vested with the powers to entertain new that the appellate authority are vested with the powers to entertain new that the appellate authority are vested with the powers to entertain new or fresh claim made by the assessee, which was not made in the return of or fresh claim made by the assessee, which was not made in the return of or fresh claim made by the assessee, which was not made in the return of income. Our view is further supp income. Our view is further supported by the decision of Hon’ble orted by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional jurisdictional High High Court Court in in the the case case of of CIT CIT Vs Vs Perlo Perlo Telecommunication and Electronic Components India Pvt Ltd (TC ommunication and Electronic Components India Pvt Ltd (TC ommunication and Electronic Components India Pvt Ltd (TC No. 413 of 2014) dated 20.09.2021 No. 413 of 2014) dated 20.09.2021 wherein one of the question of wherein one of the question of law before the Hon’ble High Court was as f law before the Hon’ble High Court was as follows:-
“1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax “1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax “1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessing officer should have Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessing officer should have Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that assessing officer should have considered rectified computation of income submitted the assessee during the considered rectified computation of income submitted the assessee during the considered rectified computation of income submitted the assessee during the course of assessment course of assessment proceedings and allowed the claim for proceedings and allowed the claim for deduction expenditure made through such revised computation and not through a revised expenditure made through such revised computation and not through a revised expenditure made through such revised computation and not through a revised return of income?
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee did not claim additional that the assessee did not claim additional deduction or exemption or made a fresh claim for deduction, by filing a revised deduction or exemption or made a fresh claim for deduction, by filing a revised deduction or exemption or made a fresh claim for deduction, by filing a revised computation and claiming deduction under section 37(1)?” computation and claiming deduction under section 37(1)?”
5.5 The Hon’ble High Court is noted to have answered the above The Hon’ble High Court is noted to have answered the above The Hon’ble High Court is noted to have answered the above question in favour of the assessee, by holding as under: avour of the assessee, by holding as under:-
“8. In fact, the Tribunal took note of these decisions and had placed reliance on “8. In fact, the Tribunal took note of these decisions and had placed reliance on “8. In fact, the Tribunal took note of these decisions and had placed reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bombay) and noted that even if a and noted that even if a claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the claim is not made before the Assessing Officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities and the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain appellate authorities and the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain appellate authorities and the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Goetz such a claim has not been negated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Goetz such a claim has not been negated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Limited Vs. CIT and in fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue India Limited Vs. CIT and in fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue India Limited Vs. CIT and in fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the said case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the in the said case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the in the said case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act.
Thus, the power of the Tribunal cannot be curtailed, based upon the dictum of us, the power of the Tribunal cannot be curtailed, based upon the dictum of us, the power of the Tribunal cannot be curtailed, based upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Limited Vs. CIT. After noting this the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Limited Vs. CIT. After noting this the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Limited Vs. CIT. After noting this legal position, the examination is as to whether the Tribunal has recorded a legal position, the examination is as to whether the Tribunal has recorded a legal position, the examination is as to whether the Tribunal has recorded a factual finding that claim factual finding that claim made by the assessee, when the case was discussed case was discussed by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment by filing a computation, by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment by filing a computation, by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment by filing a computation, which is not a fresh claim. Further, the Tribunal held that the assessee is only which is not a fresh claim. Further, the Tribunal held that the assessee is only which is not a fresh claim. Further, the Tribunal held that the assessee is only claiming expenditure, which was left out at claiming expenditure, which was left out at the time of filing of original income the time of filing of original income tax return and in any event, the Assessing Officer has power to make upward or tax return and in any event, the Assessing Officer has power to make upward or tax return and in any event, the Assessing Officer has power to make upward or downward adjustments in the income returned filed by the assessee and when downward adjustments in the income returned filed by the assessee and when downward adjustments in the income returned filed by the assessee and when the assessee had not claimed certain expenditures clearly evide the assessee had not claimed certain expenditures clearly evide the assessee had not claimed certain expenditures clearly evident from the records and it comes to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer at the time of records and it comes to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer at the time of records and it comes to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer should grant relief to the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer should grant relief to the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer should grant relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal took note of the Circular issued by CBDT dated 11.04.1955, 10. The Tribunal took note of the Circular issued by CBDT dated 11.04.1955, 10. The Tribunal took note of the Circular issued by CBDT dated 11.04.1955, wherein the Board ordered that the officers of the Income Tax should not take the Board ordered that the officers of the Income Tax should not take the Board ordered that the officers of the Income Tax should not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his rights. It is one of their duties to assist the taxpayers in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of to assist the taxpayers in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of to assist the taxpayers in every reasonable way, particularly in the matter of claiming and securing re claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard, the officer should take the liefs and in this regard, the officer should take the initiative in guiding a taxpayer, where proceedings or other particulars before initiative in guiding a taxpayer, where proceedings or other particulars before initiative in guiding a taxpayer, where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him. them indicate that some refund or relief is due to him.
Further, the Circular states that department should freely adv 11. Further, the Circular states that department should freely adv 11. Further, the Circular states that department should freely advise the assessee, when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to assessee, when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to assessee, when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. It may be true that the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. It may be true that the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. It may be true that the Circular is of the year 1955. Nevertheless, as per the recent notification the Circular is of the year 1955. Nevertheless, as per the recent notification the Circular is of the year 1955. Nevertheless, as per the recent notification issued by the Income Tax Department as to how the department has to y the Income Tax Department as to how the department has to y the Income Tax Department as to how the department has to approach the assessee, the Board has been consistent to state that the approach the assessee, the Board has been consistent to state that the approach the assessee, the Board has been consistent to state that the department should adopt an assessee friendly approach. In any event, on facts, department should adopt an assessee friendly approach. In any event, on facts, department should adopt an assessee friendly approach. In any event, on facts, the Tribunal was convinced that the claim made the Tribunal was convinced that the claim made by the assessee towards by the assessee towards expenditure was not a fresh claim. Therefore, the Tribunal had exercised its expenditure was not a fresh claim. Therefore, the Tribunal had exercised its expenditure was not a fresh claim. Therefore, the Tribunal had exercised its powers conferred under Section 254 of the Act, which cannot be found fault powers conferred under Section 254 of the Act, which cannot be found fault powers conferred under Section 254 of the Act, which cannot be found fault with.”
5.6 Following the above decision (supra), we therefore hold that the Ld. Following the above decision (supra), we therefore hold that the Ld. Following the above decision (supra), we therefore hold that the Ld. CIT(A) being an appellate authority was unjustified in not entertaining the CIT(A) being an appellate authority was unjustified in not entertaining the CIT(A) being an appellate authority was unjustified in not entertaining the assessee’s claim for deduction of balance additional depreciation u/s assessee’s claim for deduction of balance additional depreciation u/s assessee’s claim for deduction of balance additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act, when on merits, he had held that the assessee was 32(1)(iia) of the Act, when on merits, he had held that the assessee was 32(1)(iia) of the Act, when on merits, he had held that the assessee was indeed entitled for the same. We the indeed entitled for the same. We therefore reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) refore reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the balance 10% on this issue and direct the AO to allow the balance 10% on this issue and direct the AO to allow the balance 10% additional depreciation amounting to Rs. amounting to Rs.15,71,32,419/-. This ground is therefore . This ground is therefore allowed.
Ground No. 5 is against the action of the lower authorities denyin Ground No. 5 is against the action of the lower authorities denyin Ground No. 5 is against the action of the lower authorities denying the weighted deduction claimed in respect of research & development the weighted deduction claimed in respect of research & development the weighted deduction claimed in respect of research & development expenditure incurred at the approved in expenditure incurred at the approved in-house R&D facility under Section house R&D facility under Section 35(2AB) of the Act.
6.1 The facts as discernible from records are that, the assessee had The facts as discernible from records are that, the assessee had The facts as discernible from records are that, the assessee had incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their earch expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their earch expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their approved in-house R&D facility. The assessee had accordingly claimed house R&D facility. The assessee had accordingly claimed house R&D facility. The assessee had accordingly claimed weighted deduction of Rs.709,59,45,340/ weighted deduction of Rs.709,59,45,340/- being 200% of the expenditure being 200% of the expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, in terms of Form 3CLA issued by the audi u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, in terms of Form 3CLA issued by the audi u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, in terms of Form 3CLA issued by the auditor. The AO however noted that the expenses certified by DSIR in Form 3CL was AO however noted that the expenses certified by DSIR in Form 3CL was AO however noted that the expenses certified by DSIR in Form 3CL was lower and therefore restricted the weighted deduction @ 200% to the lower and therefore restricted the weighted deduction @ 200% to the lower and therefore restricted the weighted deduction @ 200% to the extent of expenditure approved by DSIR and allowed normal deduction extent of expenditure approved by DSIR and allowed normal deduction extent of expenditure approved by DSIR and allowed normal deduction @100% in respect of the balance sum. Accor @100% in respect of the balance sum. Accordingly, the disallowance of dingly, the disallowance of weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, was worked out weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, was worked out weighted component of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, was worked out by the AO, as under:-
Excess claim Claimed by the Allowable Allowable Nature of Total allowable allowable disallowed assessee u/s35(1) and u/s35(2AB) Expenditure Col. (4) Col. (4) Col(4)- @200% Col.(1) 35(2) Col.(2) Col.(3) Col.(1) Revenue 433,89,46,988 216,94,73,494 216,73,17,000 433,67,90,494 433,67,90,494 21,56,494 Expenditure Capital 275,69,98,352 137,84,99,176 133,30,55,000 271,15,54,176 271,15,54,176 4,54,44,176 Expenditure Total 709,59,45,340 354,79,72,670 350,03,72,000 704,83,44,670 704,83,44,670 4,76,00,670 6.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee, by observing as under: assessee, by observing as under:-
“I have considered the submissions of the Appellant but I do not agree, since it “I have considered the submissions of the Appellant but I do not agree, since it “I have considered the submissions of the Appellant but I do not agree, since it is not in line with the provisions of section 35(2AB) which grants weighted with the provisions of section 35(2AB) which grants weighted with the provisions of section 35(2AB) which grants weighted deduction for R&D expenditure only on approval by DSIR. Form No. 3CL issued deduction for R&D expenditure only on approval by DSIR. Form No. 3CL issued deduction for R&D expenditure only on approval by DSIR. Form No. 3CL issued by the DSIR is the basis on which the AO can grant weighted deduction and AO by the DSIR is the basis on which the AO can grant weighted deduction and AO by the DSIR is the basis on which the AO can grant weighted deduction and AO does not have any powers in deciding the q does not have any powers in deciding the quantum of weighted deduction on his uantum of weighted deduction on his own. Hence the claim of the Appellant on this ground is rejected and the action own. Hence the claim of the Appellant on this ground is rejected and the action own. Hence the claim of the Appellant on this ground is rejected and the action of the AO in restricting the deduction to the amount certified by DSIR is upheld. of the AO in restricting the deduction to the amount certified by DSIR is upheld. of the AO in restricting the deduction to the amount certified by DSIR is upheld. The Appeal on this ground is rejected.” The Appeal on this ground is rejected.”
6.3 Now the assessee is in appeal before us. Now the assessee is in appeal before us.
6.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that, the assessee has an approved in undisputed facts are that, the assessee has an approved in undisputed facts are that, the assessee has an approved in-house R&D facility for which the DSIR has issued approval in Form 3CA. Further, the facility for which the DSIR has issued approval in Form 3CA. Further, the facility for which the DSIR has issued approval in Form 3CA. Further, the assessee has maintained separate accounts for the R&D facility which has e has maintained separate accounts for the R&D facility which has e has maintained separate accounts for the R&D facility which has been audited in Form 3CLA. Having regard to the provisions of sub been audited in Form 3CLA. Having regard to the provisions of sub been audited in Form 3CLA. Having regard to the provisions of sub- clauses (1) to (4) of Section 35(2AB) of the Act, it is noted that the clauses (1) to (4) of Section 35(2AB) of the Act, it is noted that the clauses (1) to (4) of Section 35(2AB) of the Act, it is noted that the assessee had satisfied the three conditions set out t assessee had satisfied the three conditions set out therein, for claiming herein, for claiming weighted deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred at the in weighted deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred at the in weighted deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred at the in-house R&D facility. According to the AO however, since the expenditure as set R&D facility. According to the AO however, since the expenditure as set R&D facility. According to the AO however, since the expenditure as set out in the audited accounts had not been entirely certified and approved out in the audited accounts had not been entirely certified and approved out in the audited accounts had not been entirely certified and approved by the DSIR in their Form 3CL, he had restricted the claim of weighted heir Form 3CL, he had restricted the claim of weighted heir Form 3CL, he had restricted the claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, only to the extent of expenses which deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, only to the extent of expenses which deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, only to the extent of expenses which were approved by the DSIR. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that Rule 6 were approved by the DSIR. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that Rule 6 were approved by the DSIR. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that Rule 6 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [herein after the Rules], wh , which contained the procedure for obtaining the approval from DSIR, as it stood then, the procedure for obtaining the approval from DSIR, as it stood then, the procedure for obtaining the approval from DSIR, as it stood then, nowhere prescribed that the DSIR was required to certify the quantum of nowhere prescribed that the DSIR was required to certify the quantum of nowhere prescribed that the DSIR was required to certify the quantum of weighted deduction or the amount certified in Form 3CL was to be weighted deduction or the amount certified in Form 3CL was to be weighted deduction or the amount certified in Form 3CL was to be considered as the sum eligible for considered as the sum eligible for weighted deduction. It was shown to us weighted deduction. It was shown to us that, the above Rule 6 underwent amendment by the Income Tax (10th that, the above Rule 6 underwent amendment by the Income Tax (10 that, the above Rule 6 underwent amendment by the Income Tax (10 Amendment) Rules, 2016, wherein sub Amendment) Rules, 2016, wherein sub-clause (7A) was amended with clause (7A) was amended with effect from 01.07.2016, hence applicable from AY 2017 effect from 01.07.2016, hence applicable from AY 2017-18 and onwards, 18 and onwards, in terms of which the legislature mandated the DSIR to quantify the ch the legislature mandated the DSIR to quantify the ch the legislature mandated the DSIR to quantify the quantum of deduction allowable u/s. ntum of deduction allowable u/s.35(2AB) of the Act in Part 35(2AB) of the Act in Part-B of Form 3CL. Hence, the position prevailing prior to amendment of the Rule was 3CL. Hence, the position prevailing prior to amendment of the Rule was 3CL. Hence, the position prevailing prior to amendment of the Rule was that, the Form 3CL issued by DSIR was not relevant to ascert that, the Form 3CL issued by DSIR was not relevant to ascert that, the Form 3CL issued by DSIR was not relevant to ascertain the claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, having regard of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, having regard of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, having regard to the following, in our considered view therefore, the requirement to to the following, in our considered view therefore, the requirement to to the following, in our considered view therefore, the requirement to claim weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), prior to AY 2017 claim weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), prior to AY 2017 claim weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), prior to AY 2017-18, was (a) entering into an agreement betw entering into an agreement between the facility and the DSIR and (b) een the facility and the DSIR and (b) recognition of the R&D facility by DSIR in Form 3CM, and once these two recognition of the R&D facility by DSIR in Form 3CM, and once these two recognition of the R&D facility by DSIR in Form 3CM, and once these two conditions are met, the expenditure set out in separate audited accounts conditions are met, the expenditure set out in separate audited accounts conditions are met, the expenditure set out in separate audited accounts of the R&D facility i.e. Form 3CLA, will qualify for weighted deduction u of the R&D facility i.e. Form 3CLA, will qualify for weighted deduction u of the R&D facility i.e. Form 3CLA, will qualify for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. We further note that the impugned issue stands 35(2AB) of the Act. We further note that the impugned issue stands 35(2AB) of the Act. We further note that the impugned issue stands squarely covered in assessee’s favour by the decision rendered by this squarely covered in assessee’s favour by the decision rendered by this squarely covered in assessee’s favour by the decision rendered by this Tribunal in their own case for AY 2010 Tribunal in their own case for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in 12 in 362/Chny/20204 wherein at Para 3.4, it was held 362/Chny/20204 wherein at Para 3.4, it was held as under: as under:
3.4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record……. It is noted that DSIR is an authority for approval of R&D facility. And record……. It is noted that DSIR is an authority for approval of R&D facility. And record……. It is noted that DSIR is an authority for approval of R&D facility. And once facility is approved, expenditure incurred by it qualifies for deduction once facility is approved, expenditure incurred by it qualifies for deduction once facility is approved, expenditure incurred by it qualifies for deduction u/s.35(2AB), irrespective of DSIR approval as per the law in force. As noted, the , irrespective of DSIR approval as per the law in force. As noted, the , irrespective of DSIR approval as per the law in force. As noted, the R & D Facility has been approved as required by the authority i.e. DSIR. The R & D Facility has been approved as required by the authority i.e. DSIR. The R & D Facility has been approved as required by the authority i.e. DSIR. The settled position as per the law in force is that once facility is approved, settled position as per the law in force is that once facility is approved, settled position as per the law in force is that once facility is approved, expenditure incurred in this reg expenditure incurred in this regard qualifies for deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act ard qualifies for deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act until amendment was brought in Rule 6(7A) of the of the Income Tax Rules, until amendment was brought in Rule 6(7A) of the of the Income Tax Rules, until amendment was brought in Rule 6(7A) of the of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter in short ‘the Rules’) w.e.f. 01.07.2016 (relevant to AY 2017 1962 (hereinafter in short ‘the Rules’) w.e.f. 01.07.2016 (relevant to AY 2017 1962 (hereinafter in short ‘the Rules’) w.e.f. 01.07.2016 (relevant to AY 2017- 18). Therefore, the AO/Ld.CIT(A) erred in disallowin 18). Therefore, the AO/Ld.CIT(A) erred in disallowing the weighted deduction g the weighted deduction u/s.32(2AB) of the Act on the expenditure incurred in an approved in u/s.32(2AB) of the Act on the expenditure incurred in an approved in u/s.32(2AB) of the Act on the expenditure incurred in an approved in-house R & D facility. In other words, deduction can’t be restricted to the amount of D facility. In other words, deduction can’t be restricted to the amount of D facility. In other words, deduction can’t be restricted to the amount of expenditure quantified by the DSIR before the AY 2017 expenditure quantified by the DSIR before the AY 2017-18….”
- Sundram Fastener Sundram Fasteners Ltd., v. DCIT (ITA No.3236/Chny/2017)in para no. s Ltd., v. DCIT (ITA No.3236/Chny/2017)in para no. 4.3 on page 12 4.3 on page 12 - ACIT vs. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 338 ACIT vs. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 338 ACIT vs. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 338 (Mumbai - Trib.) Trib.) - CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras) CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras) CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras)
- Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 (Chennai (Chennai -Trib.) 6.5 In light of the above therefore, we hold that the AO was not In light of the above therefore, we hold that the AO was not In light of the above therefore, we hold that the AO was not justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre-amended period and direct deletion of the disallowance of the weighted component period and direct deletion of the disallowance of the weighted component period and direct deletion of the disallowance of the weighted component of deduction of Rs.4,76,00,670/ of deduction of Rs.4,76,00,670/-. This ground is therefore allowed. efore allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on the 12th day of February, 2025, in Chennai. Order pronounced on the , in Chennai.