Tally
coaching
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Excess deduction u/s35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Chennai

Brief :
These cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders of the learned CIT(A)-15, Chennai, both dated 27.12.2017 and pertain to assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15.Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience,these appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.

Citation :
ITA 1356/CHNY/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A.No.1376 & 1254/Chny/2018
Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax,Corporate Circle-6(2),
Chennai.
PAN: AAACS 4920J
Appellant

Vs 

M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
29, Jayalakshmi Estates,
Haddows Road,
Chennai-600 006.
Respondent)
 &

I.T.A.No.1355 & 1356/Chny/2018
Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
29, Jayalakshmi Estates,
Haddows Road,
Chennai-600 006.
PAN: AAACS 4920J
Appellant

Vs 

The Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax,
Corporate Circle-6(2),
Chennai.
Respondent)

Revenue by : Mr. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Assessee by : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan,
Advocate

Date of hearing : 29.03.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

O R D E R

PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM: 

These cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders of the learned CIT(A)-15, Chennai, both dated 27.12.2017 and pertain to assessment year 2013-14 & 2014-15.Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience,these appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order.

2. The Revenue has more or less raised common grounds of appeal for both assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No.1376/Chny/2018 are reproduced as under:-

“1).The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and facts of the case.

2) The Learned A.R CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to verify the assessee submission with the respect to assessment record and to restrict the disallowance of excess deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB).

2.1) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the DSIR is the central agency which assessee the R&D work done by the assessee and quantified the eligible amount The assessee is not eligible to claim more than that is certified by the DSIR itself.

2.2) The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that the assessee claimed the excess deduction u/s35(2AB).

3)The CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of dividend income.

3.1)The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the “power to set aside” are “ examining the issue afresh” has been omitted with effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 

To know more in details find the attachment file

 

Guest
on 21 June 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 12
downloaded 4 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags