M/S SWARAJ MAZDA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, CHANDIGARH

ITA Nos. 79 & 112/Chd/2009, & ITA 399, 478 & 25/Chd/2011, 1234/Chd/2011, 1085 & 1086/Chd/2014 & 1212/Chd/2016, 575/Chd/2017 -Swaraz mazda ltd/ Shimla Isuzu Limited. 9

Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Texmaco Rail & Engineering

Ltd Vs. PCIT’ 86 taxmann.com 50.

manufacturing automobiles as a specified business at the time of the

renewal of certificate of the research facility i.e. 5.4.2004 for claiming

weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) is concerned, the Ld. counsel has

submitted that the automobile manufacturing has been included in the

notification dated 21.9.2004. There is no stipulation in the notification

that it would be applicable from any specific date / period. That benefit of

the weighted deduction could not be resorted to from the date of the

notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit

for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has

relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of

‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further

contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned

in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself

could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the

benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout

the assessment year under consideration.

lower authorities and has submitted that the lower authorities have rightly

denied the claim of the assessee. The Ld. DR has further submitted that

apart from the contention that the approval should be granted in the

prescribed Form 3CM, there are other conditions as prescribed u/s 35(2AB)