SALVI CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 13(2)(1), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed
ITA 300/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Salvi Chemicals बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. C/O. H.N. Motiwalla & Co. 400020. 508 Sharda Chambers 33 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs0142E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Harish Motiwalla (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.09.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Under Section A.Y. 2014-15 36(1)(Iv) R.W.S 36 (2Ab) Of The Act, Amounting To Rs, 1,88,97,692/-, Particularly When, The Order Under Section 35(2Ab) Of The Act (In Form No. 3Cm) Had Been Granted Registration Upto March 31,2012 & Renewed Upto March 31, 2015. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai, Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Amounting To Rs. 1,88,97,692/ Under Section 35(1)(Iv) R.W.S. 35 (2Ab) Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Decisions Submitted At The Time Of Hearing Or Without Distinguishing The Same.
For Appellant: Shri Harish Motiwalla (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)
…assessee is liable to be allowed in view of the law settled as under:- “(i) Judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) (ii) Judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (405 ITR 318) (iii) Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (397 ITR 728) (iv) Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT, Cir. 6(3) Vs. Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd. (ITA. No.4246/Mum/2009) dated August 20,2010 However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has strongly relied upon the orde…
