DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2), PUNE vs. M/S. DUROSHOX PVT.LTD, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 487/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 December 2022AY 2013-1416 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for AY 2013-14. This was because the DSIR had issued Form 3CM approving the R&D facility with an effective date within the relevant previous year.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The dispute centered on whether the assessee was eligible for the deduction in AY 2013-14, given the approval dates from the DSIR.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for AY 2013-14 when the DSIR approval had an effective date within that previous year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(2AB),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 09.12.2022Pronounced: 23.12.2022

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Pune's order dated 04.12.2018, passed in case No.PN/CIT(A)-1/ITO Wd.1(4)/PN/431/16-17, involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

The Revenue raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the, Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the Assessee's claim of weighted deduction of Rs.4,21,43,156/- u/s 35(2AB) for the AY 2013-14 whereas the Assessee had entered into agreement with the DSIR on 19.08.2013, relevant to AY 2014-15?

3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the Assessee the whole of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) even if the Assessee was accorded approval in form 3CM by the DSIR only with effect from 01.04.2013 and later revised with effect from 26.03.2013?

4.

The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.”

4. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion reversing sec.35(2AB) weighted deduction disallowance of Rs.4,21,43,156/- made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment dated 16.03.2016 vide following detailed lower appellate discussion.

3 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 4 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 5 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 6 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 7 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 8 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 9 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 10 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 11 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 12 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 13 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 14 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune.

5.

Mr. Murkunde vehemently argued in light of Revenue’s pleadings that once the assessee had entered into an agreement with the prescribed authority i.e., Department of Scientific and Industrial Research [in short “DSIR”] on 19.08.2013 relevant to assessment year 2014-15, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating it eligible for sec.35(2)(ab) weighted deduction for preceding assessment year in issue i.e., assessment year 2013-14. He has also quoted Apollo Tyres Ltd., vs. Union of India [Writ Petition No.13338/2009 dated 20.04.2010] reported in [2022] 133 taxmann.com 284 (Del.) and this tribunal’s learned coordinate bench’s order in Advik Hi-tech Pvt. Ltd., vs., ACIT ITA.No.1743 & 1744/Pun./2012 that an assessee is entitled for the impugned weighted deduction only from the date of agreement as is the case before us than taking the same in the preceding assessment year.

6.

The assessee has placed strong reliance on the CIT(A)'s foregoing details.

7.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival submissions and find no force in the Revenue’s stand. It emerges during the course of hearing that the 15 ITA.No.487/PUN./2019 M/s. Duroshox Pvt. Ltd., Pune. prescribed authority i.e., DSIR had duly issued Form 3CM to the assessee on 17.01.2017 approving its research and development facility from 26.03.2013 to 31.03.2013 for the purpose of sec.35(2AB) claim. We thus are of the opinion that the said approval, once it has come with effect from the relevant previous year only, duly entitles the assessee to seek sec.35(2AB) weighted deduction for the entire period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 pertaining to the impugned assessment year. The Revenue’s foregoing judicial precedence admittedly do not deal with such an instance of both the claim as well as the approval falling in the same previous year. Faced with the situation, we uphold the CIT(A)'s findings extracted in the preceding paragraphs holding the assessee entitled for sec.35(2AB) weighted deduction in issue. The Revenue fails in its sole substantive grievance.

8.

No other argument or ground has been pressed before us.

9.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.12.2022.

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 →