ACIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 478/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5011 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 79 & 112/CHD/2009, & ITA 399, 478 & 25/CHD/2011, 1234/CHD/2011, 1085 & 1086/CHD/2014 & 1212/CHD/2016, 575/CHD/2017 -SWARAZ MAZDA LTD/ SHIMLA ISUZU LIMITED. 9 KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TEXMA CO RAIL & ENGINEERING LTD VS. PCIT 86 TAXMANN.COM 50. 8. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE NON-INCLUSIO N OF THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AUTOMOBILES AS A SPECIFIED BUSINESS A T THE TIME OF THE RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF THE RESEARCH FACILITY I.E . 5.4.2004 FOR CLAIMING WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) IS CONCERNED, THE LD . COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING HAS BEE N INCLUDED IN THE NOTIFICATION DATED 21.9.2004. THERE IS NO STIPULAT ION IN THE NOTIFICATION THAT IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE FROM ANY SPECIFIC DATE / PERIOD. THAT BENEFIT OF THE WEIGHTED DEDUCTION COULD NOT BE RESORTED TO FRO M THE DATE OF THE NOTIFICATION ONWARDS, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIG IBLE TO CLAIM OF BENEFIT FOR THE WHOLE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. COUN SEL IN THIS RESPECT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WHEELS INDIA LTD. 336 ITR 513. THE LD. C OUNSEL HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AUTOMOBILE BUSIN ESS WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTIFICATION AT THE TIME OF GRANT OF RENEWAL CERTIFICATE, THAT ITSELF COULD NOT STAND IN THE WAY FOR GRANT OF BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE BENEFIT OF THE NOTIFICATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR HAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT APART FROM THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPROVAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 3CM, THERE ARE OTHER CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 35(2AB)