ACIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 25/CHANDI/2012Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2007-081 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the weighted deduction from the date the notification including automobile manufacturing was issued, not just from the date of renewal. The benefit of the notification should be available for the entire assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for the business of manufacturing automobiles. The issue arose because automobile manufacturing was not specified in the notification at the time of renewal of the research facility certificate, though it was later included.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for automobile manufacturing when it was not specified in the notification at the time of certificate renewal but was later included.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(2AB)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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.

8.

So far as the issue relating to the non-inclusion of the business of

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.

9.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the findings of the

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)

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 →