MYLAN LABORATORIES LTD,(FORMERLY MATRIX LABORATORIES LIMITED), HYD HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :

These are cross-appeals by Assessee and Revenue for the AY. 2010-11 against the order(s) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, dated 05-02-2016.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -:

2.1. Since assessee transacted with Associated Enterprises (AE) as defined- in Section 92A of the Act, the case was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] who issued Transfer Pricing Order dated 27-01-2014 by making an adjustment of Rs 12,65,12,038/- u/s 92CA of the Act. The AO framed a Draft Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 10-03-2014 taking into account the above Transfer Pricing Order. The AO vide his draft order determined the total income at Rs. 2,35,76,34,030/- under normal computation and at Rs.3,00,07,52,895/- u/s. 115JB.

2.2. Assessee vide letter dated 16-04-2014 accepted the Draft Assessment Order (without prejudice to its right of appeal under the Act) in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 144C of the Act. Accordingly, the AO passed the final order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3). Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 3 -:

contested various additions and the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal partially. Assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us.

ITA No. 626/Hyd/2016 (assessee’s appeal):

“2. The CIT(A) while accepting the appellant’s submissions that the provisions of section 14A cannot be invoked in appellant’s case erred in directing the disallowance u/s. 14A to 8.6 lakhs (the amount was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 86 lakhs instead of Rs. 8.6 lakhs for which rectification petition is being filed).

Ground Nos. 1 & 5 are general in nature.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 4 -:

“6.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has relied on the Gujarat's High Court decision in the case of CIT v. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (1) Ltd.(2014) 41 taxmann.com 540 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that, where assessee's interest free funds far exceeded investments made for earning exempted dividend income, and AO had also failed to establish nexus between borrowed funds and investments made, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A. Hence, following the Hon'ble High Court's decision in the above case, the submissions made by the appellant are accepted and also the disallowance worked out under Rule 8D by the appellant are accepted after verifying the same. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed to the extent of Rs. 86 lakhs ( later

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 5 -:

modified to 8.6 lakhs u/s 154 of the IT Act) and the ground of appeal is partly allowed”.

5.1. It was the contention that assessee has not earned any dividend income and has not claimed any exemption. Therefore, the provisions of Section 14A are not applicable.

5.2. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that assessee has not earned any dividend income during the relevant assessment year. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case Prathista Industries Ltd., Vs. DCIT in ITA No. of 1302/Hyd/2015 dated 29-04-2016, directed to delete the disallowance, since there is no income claiming exemption during the year. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd., in (2015) [378 ITR 33] (Del) and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Redington (India) Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT in TCA No. 520/2016 dt. 26-06-2015 have held that the disallowance u/s. 14A cannot be made where there is no exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Ground is allowed.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 6 -:

36,39,46,000/- being R&D revenue expenditure and Rs. 7,42,60,000/- being R&D capital expenditure. AO issued show cause notice why the balance claim should not be disallowed. Assessee submitted that the expenditure certified is eligible for deduction u/s. 35(2AB) at 150% but the balance expenditure incurred which was not certified is also eligible for deduction u/s. 35(1)/37(1). AO, however, disallowed the claim to an extent of Rs. 1,78,71,547/- u/s. 32(2AB). Ld.CIT(A) following the submissions of assessee, allowed the amount as under:

“7.2 With regard to above issue, the appellant submitted that the expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,19,14,365/- not considered by the DSIR for weightage, is required to be allowed under normal sub- section (1) of section 35 of the Act as expenditure incurred for scientific research in respect of the business carried on by the tax payer. The appellant also submitted that for A.Y. 2008-09, in the appellant's own case, Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 10-01-2014 held that expenditure which is not allowable u/s 35(2AB) by virtue of DSIR certification is allowable u/s 35(1).

7.3 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. The Hon'ble ITAT vide its order in ITA No.66/Hyd/2013 dt. 10-01-2014 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the appellant’s own case with regard to the above issue held as under:

“Since the entire claim of the assessee was rejected summarily without examining the fact, we are of the opinion that this expenditure of Rs. 56,35,712/- in respect of R&D Expenditure is to be considered u/s. 35(1), if not for the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB). Assessing Officer is directed to examine the necessary expenditure and allow the claim. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes”.

7.4 Hence, respectfully following the Hon'ble ITAT decision on the above said ground, additions made by the Assessing Officer deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed”.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 7 -:

6.1. On this issue, both Assessee and Revenue are in appeal. Assessee is asking for modification of the order, whereas Revenue is in appeal for allowing the ground by the CIT(A).

6.2. We notice that the direction of CIT(A) is to be modified, ITAT vide its order referred to above in the order of CIT(A) has clearly held that expenditure which is not allowable u/s. 32(2AB) by virtue of DSIR certificate (to the extent not certified) is allowable u/s. 35(1), that means to the extent of 100% of the claim, assessee would be eligible for the expenditure, whereas the weighted deduction of balance 50% would not be eligible. However, Ld.CIT(A) directed the entire amount to be allowed without noticing the said difference. Since there is a mistake in the direction of CIT(A), we modify the same and direct the AO to allow the amount to the extent of 100% u/s. 35(1) as directed in AY. 2008-09 and balance of the claim is to be disallowed. AO can modify the order accordingly.

6.3. Coming to the ground of Revenue, the issue is pending before the Hon'ble High Court as Revenue is contesting allowance of the balance amount u/s. 35(1) in earlier year. Since Ld.CIT(A) relied on the order of the Co- ordinate Bench, we do not find any reason to interfere with the direction to allow the amount which was not certified by the DSIR to be considered for allowance u/s. 35(1). With reference to weighted deduction, we have already modified the direction

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 8 -:

of the CIT(A) in assessee’s appeal. In view of that, ground of Revenue is partially allowed. In nut shell, assessee is entitled to claim uncertified amount at 100% u/s 35(1) and the excess claim of weighted deduction to that extent is to be disallowed. AO is ordered accordingly.

ITA No. 659/Hyd/2016 (Revenue’s appeal):

“2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rs. 8,60,000/- as against disallowance of Rs. 7,04,13,488/- made by the Assessing Officer.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 9 -:

Ground Nos. 1 & 6 are general in nature.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 10 -:

the Co-ordinate Bench decision in that year, ITAT is consistently allowing the depreciation on the WDV on this amount which Ld.CIT(A) has allowed. Revenue should have taken the amount on the issue which was allowed, whereas it has taken the ground on an issue which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in favour of revenue. Since the issue does not arise, Ground No. 3 is dismissed.

12.1. With reference to the main contention that un- certified amount cannot be allowed, we were informed that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. However, since Co-ordinate Bench direction in earlier years is in favour of assessee to that extent, there is no merit in Revenue grounds. Accordingly the ground is considered partly allowed.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 11 -:

assessee has filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. AO, consistent to the stand taken in earlier years, disallowed the claim. Ld.CIT(A) following the order of ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY. 2008-09 has allowed the claim, by stating as under:

“8.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. In this regard, the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order in ITA No.66/Hyd/2013 dt.10-01-2014 in the appellant's own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 held as under:

“The Assessing Officer following the orders u/s 263 for the A. Y. 2005-06 held that the unit is not newly established undertaking and was existing prior to the incorporation of provisions of section 10B and the conditions are not fulfilled and further that unit is not located in export process zone. Even though the Hon'ble AP High Court merely directed the CIT(A) to examine the approvals granted to the eligible units of the assessee in terms of the policy regulations laid down by Central Government, the CIT-IV, however, seems to have raised new ground for denying exemption and the same has been once again disputed by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court in WP No.1398 of 2011. The Assessing Officer following the orders in earlier years did not allow the claim of the assessee u/s. 10B. The DRP, however, noticed that the issue is subject to revisional proceedings by the CIT and the writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of AP. Since the matter is contested at the Higher Forum legally, the DRP considered it fit not to interfere with the stand of the Assessing Officer but however, directed the Assessing officer to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of AP as and when issue was decided. It further suggested that demand on account of disallowance of deduction be kept in abeyance till the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of AP. The assessee has raised this issue before us but submitted that the matter is subjudice. Since the DRP has already given clear directions on this issue, we uphold the directions of the DRP with an observation that the AO should follow the same as and when that issue is decided by the Hon'ble High Court of AP. This ground is considered as allowed for statistical purposes”.

8.4 Since the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the above said ground and directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., by respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, the ground of appeal is allowed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue is deleted”.

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 12 -:

13.1. After considering the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the direction of the CIT(A). Since the matter is subjudice, the AO is directed to follow the decision of the Hon'ble High Court as when it is rendered. Till such time, the claim of 10B will be considered allowed and the demand if any cannot be claimed from assessee. Since the order of CIT(A) is in tune with the findings of the ITAT in earlier year, there is no need to interfere with the said order. Ground of Revenue on this issue stands rejected.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th May, 2018

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 9th May, 2018 TNMM

ITA Nos. 626 & 659/Hyd/2016 :- 13 -:

Copy to : 1. Mylan Laboratories Limited (Formerly known as Matrix Laboratories Limited), Plot No. 564/A/22, Road No. 92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.