DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), DELHI vs. CINESTAN FILM COMPANY PVT LTD., DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2703/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 September 2023AY 2017-18Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member)3 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 noted that the Revenue failed to amend the grounds of appeal despite being directed to do so. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders allowing deductions to the assessee. The grounds of appeal filed by the DCIT were found to be in contrast with those authorized by the PCIT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing deductions for payments to a director and amounts not included in Form 3CL as scientific research expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(2AB)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarMs. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA &, Ms. Shruti Gupta, CA
Hearing: 31.08.2023Pronounced: 05.09.2023

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2702/Del/2022
ITA No. 2703/Del/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.09.2022.

2.

Since, the issue involved in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order.

4.

The grounds authorized by the ld. PCIT are in accordance with the addition made by the Assessing Officer and as deleted by the ld. CIT(A).

5.

In following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that payments made to a director of a company is an allowable deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3 & 2703/Del/2022 Cinestann Film Company Pvt. Ltd. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act of the amount not included in Form 3CL as submitted by DSIR since the same was not incurred on Scientific Research.” 6. However, we find that the grounds raised by the DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi as mentioned above at para 5 are totally in contrast with the grounds duly authorized by ld. PCIT. This fact has brought to the notice that the Revenue and directed to file a revised Form No.

36. Inspite of lapse of more than 90 days, the grounds have not been amended.

7.

Hence, the appeals of the revenue is hereby dismissed with liberty to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal with amended grounds as authorized by the ld. PCIT and along with the reasoning for not filing appropriate grounds of appeal.

8.

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/09/2023.

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 →