M/s Recorders & Medicare System P. Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 500/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9047 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) DEV DARSHAN SUD, PRESIDENT & SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 500/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S RECORDERS & MEDICARE SYSTEMS VS. THE ACIT, CI RCLE-2(1), P. LTD., CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AACCR6241B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAVI SARANGAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2016 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- 1, CHANDIGARH DATED 08.03.2016. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L:- THAT THE LD. CIT(A)1 HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAS THEREBY ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-1 HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING R&D EXPENSES WHICH WERE CAPITALIZED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE DESPITE THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. CONSISTENCY HAS 2 TO BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 IS COVERED AGAINST THE A SSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE B BENCH OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 285/CHD/2014 ORDER DATED 5.2.2015. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4. GROUND NO. 2 HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THOUGH HE HAS MENTIONED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT PA GE 2 OF HIS ORDER. 4. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS APPEAL IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2016. SD/- SD/- [J.SUDHAKAR REDDY] [JUSTICE (RETD.)D EV DARSHAN SUD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT DATED : 21 ST OCTOBER, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR