News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
I-T - Mere failure of prescribed authority to send intimation in Form 3CL, is not enough to deprive manufacturer's claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) incurred on R&D expenses: HC

By TIOL News Service

AHEMDABAD, AUG 23, 2017: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS - Whether mere failure of prescribed authority to send intimation in Form 3CL, is enough to deprive a manufacturer's claim of deduction on R&D expenses incurred u/s 35(2AB) of I-T Act. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The Assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. The activities of the assessee included research and development activity for developing new drugs and formulation. On an expenditure incurred by the assessee on in-house research and development facility, the assessee claimed various deductions u/s 35(2AB). For the A.Y 2009-2010, the assessee had filed returns claiming such deduction. The AO passed an order of assessment u/s 143(3) accepting the assessee's claim. The CIT was however of the opinion that the AO had not made proper inquiries before accepting the claim. After giving notice to the assessee, he passed an order u/s 263 and held that the order of assessment was passed without proper verifications, investigation and examination. The same was therefore, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He therefore, directed the AO to examine the issues discussed in the order and pass a fresh order of assessment in view of such discussion. One of the main grounds which appealed to the Commissioner was that the prescribed authority had not sent the intimation in Form 3CL to the Revenue, in absence of which, according to the Commissioner, claim could not have been accepted. The assessee approached the Tribunal, who allowed the appeal inter-alia holding that the prescribed authority shall submit its report in relation to the approval of the in-house research and development in Form 3CL to the DGIT (Exemption) within 60 days of its granting approval. In the opinion of the Tribunal, same was merely in form of intimation to be sent by the prescribed authority to the department. In case of assessee, the research and development activity having already been approved in Form 3CM, the assessee thereafter, had no further role to play in the inter-departmental correspondence. The Tribunal therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to deduction on the capital and revenue expenses incurred on in-house research and development amounting to Rs.237,77,05,310/-.

On appeal, the HC held that,

++ undisputedly, the research and development facility set up by the assessee was approved by the prescribed authority and necessary approval was granted in the prescribed format. The communication in Form 3CM was thereafter, between the prescribed authority and the department. If the same was not so, surely, the assessee cannot be made to suffer. To this extent, the Tribunal was perfectly correct and the Commissioner was not, in observing that in absence of such certification, claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) was not allowable. However, neither the prescribed authority nor the AO has applied the mind as to the expenditure, be it revenue or or capital in nature, actually incurred in developing the in-house research and development facility. To the limited extent, the Commissioner desired the AO to verify such figures, we would allow the AO to do so. In other words, in principle, we accept the Tribunal's reasons and conclusions. Merely because the prescribed authority failed to send intimation in Form 3CL, would not be reason enough to deprive the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. However, in facts of the present case, it would be open for the Assessing Officer to verify the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee. To the limited extent, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The proceedings shall be placed before the AO for passing appropriate order.

(See 2017-TIOL-1625-HC-AHM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023