CIPLA LIMITED, MUMBAI V. DCIT, CC- 1(2), MUMBAI

MA 513/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0674 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: REINSTATING CORRECT AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF R; D ASSETS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM M A N o . 5 13/ M u m/ 20 2 3 (A ri s i n g ou t o f IT A N o. 27 32/ M u m/ 2 01 8) ( A s s e ss me nt Y ea r: 20 1 1- 12 ) Cipla Limited Cipla House, Peninsula Business Park G, K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 V s. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2) Mumbai P A N / G I R N o. AA A CC 1 45 0 B (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Rajan Vora, Pranay Gandhi Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha D a te o f H e a r i n g : 20.10.2023 D ate of P ro n ou n ce me n t : 16.11.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee/applicant seeking for clarification of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2732/Mum/2018 dated 23.12.2022 relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y. for short) 2011-12. 2. Briefly stated the assessee and the Revenue were in cross appeals challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) on various grounds. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2022 had partly allowed the assessee’s appeal and had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The assessee /applicant has filed the present miscellaneous application seeking for rectification on the finding of the Tribunal pertaining to ground no. 2(c) of the assessee’s appeal with regard to the weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act on sale 2 M A N o . 5 1 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 (A.Y...2 0 1 1 - 1 2 ) Cipla Limited vs. DCIT consideration of sale of R & D assets. We hereby extract ground no. 2(c) of the assessee’s appeal: 2. Weighted deduction of Research and Development (R&D) expenditure under section 35(2AB) of the Act a) .......... b) .......... c) Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in giving a conditional relief for the rectifications claimed by the appellant with respect to sale consideration of sale of R & D Assets and its corresponding weighted deduction. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that if the rectification claimed by the assessee is accepted by the DSIR then the assessee is at a liberty to make a fresh claim to the ld. A.O. for correction of the amount of deduction based on the revised certificate. The Tribunal upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the claim of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the assessee has filed the revised application to correct the mistake in the quantification of the capital expenditure on building and other assets which has to be revised. The assessee/applicant has contended that the Tribunal has not adjudicated ground no. 2(c) mentioned above and has sought for rectification of the mistake in the order on this note. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving the conditional relief for the rectification claimed by the assessee which was upheld by the Tribunal. The ld. AR contended that ground no. 2(c) was without prejudice ground which was inadvertently not adjudicated by the Tribunal for granting weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. We also observe that the assessee has claimed for rectification of the error on the sale consideration of R & D 3 M A N o . 5 1 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 (A.Y...2 0 1 1 - 1 2 ) Cipla Limited vs. DCIT assets, which is a clerical error to be verified by the ld. A.O. It is observed that the ld. A.O. has not verified the quantum of the capital expenses on building and other assets which was wrongly worked out by the assessee based on which the DSIR had quantified the amount of expenditure incurred on in-house facility for conducting scientific research without considering the revised amount of capital expenses claimed by the assessee. 5. Ground no. 2(c) is with respect to direction of conditional relief to assessee for rectification claimed by the assessee before Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, with respect to sale consideration of sale of R & D Assets. As it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that requirement of certificate of DSIR read with Rule 6 of the I. T. Rules, 1962 for obtaining Form No. 3CL is applicable from 01.07.2016 and the impugned A.Y. is 2011-12, therefore, the conditional relief by the ld. CIT(A) is not correct. Accordingly, we set aside this ground (ground no. 2(c)) to the ld. A.O. to allow relief to the assessee by reinstating correct amount of sale consideration of R & D assets. Ground no. 2(c) is allowed with above directions. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee/applicant is allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.11.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 16.11.2023 Roshani , Sr. PS 4 M A N o . 5 1 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 (A.Y...2 0 1 1 - 1 2 ) Cipla Limited vs. DCIT Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai