Itxa/198/2017 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 v. M/S. Reliance Life Science Pvt. Ltd

Priya Soparkar 18 itxa 198-17-o IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.198 OF 2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax-8 … Appellant V/s. M/s Reliance life science Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent --- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.Madhur Agarwal with Mr.P.C.Tripathi i/by Mr.Raj B.Darak for the Respondent. --- CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : JUNE 10, 2019. P.C.:- 1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the judgmentof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following questionsare presented for our consideration:- “a.Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT is justified indirecting the assessing officer to re-computethe disallownace u/s.14A of the Act, on areasonable basis holding that the methodadopted by Assessing Officer is not applicableto the year under consideration i.e.Assessment Year 2007-08? b.Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case and in law, the ITAT was justified Priya Soparkar in allowing expenses on clinical trial u/s 37of the Income Tax Act, 1961 withoutappreciating the facts of the case and legalmatrix as clearly brought out by AssessingOfficer which was upheld by CIT (A)?” 3.Question No.a pertains to disallowance underSection 14A of the Act r/w Rule 8D. Since for the periodunder consideration i.e. for the assessment year 2007-08Rule 8D had no applicability, as in the previous year,the Tribunal placed the matter back to the AssessingOfficer for making reasonable disallowance. No questionof law arises. 4.Question No.b relates to the deduction ofexpenditure under Section 37 of the Act. Initially, inrelation to the expenditure on clinical trial the assesseehad claimed weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB)of the Act. Later on, the same was discarded andalternative claim under Section 37(1) of the Act wasmade. The Tribunal came to factual finding that theexpenditure was revenue in nature. The Tribunal rejectedthe revenue’s objection that not having claimed Priya Soparkar 8 itxa 198-17-o previously, the assessee was precluded from raising theclaim under Section 37(1) of the Act. We do not find anyerror in the view of the Tribunal. In the result, Income Taxappeal is dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) ….