THE ACIT, 5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SYMBIOTIC PHARMALAB LTD., INDORE
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed
ITA 373/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 5(1), M/S. Symbiotic Indore बनाम/ Pharmalab Ltd. 385, Vs. Pigdamber, Rau, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs9311 Revenue By Shri Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 31.12.2015 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. Itano.373/Ind/2016 05.12.2011 By Acit, 5(1) Indore. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting The Addition Of Rs. 2,60,50,027/- To Rs.3,74,195/- & Addition Made By The Ao 'After Disallowing U/S 35(2Ab) Deleted To The Extent Of Rs. 2,56,75,832/- On Account Of R&D Expenditure Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That Disr Has Not Issue Report In Form 3Cl To Dgit Exemption & Even When No Satisfactory Clarification Was Given By The Assessee To The Ao.” “2.Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 9,97,920/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Foreign Exchange Loss Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That The Loss Claimed By The Assessee In The Year Of Fluctuation In The Rate Of Exchange Or The Same Is Allowable Only In The Year' Of Repayment Of Such Loans.”
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35
2
Total
Capital
12064964
150%
18097461
0
18097461
Expenditure of R&D
(other than building
3
Total
Capital
1076834
100%
1076834
0
1076834
expenditure of R&D(building)
26893271
39801490
13751463
26050027
4.5 The appellant has contended that this was merely a technical disallowance for want of approval in Form 3CL.
The appellant had made detailed and elaborate submissions through
