BOSCH LIMITED Vs. SECRETARY, DEPT OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH MINISTRY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Bosch Limited is a limited company and assessed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The controversy involved in the present case is that the assessee company applied for approval to the competent authority respondent 1 in terms of S.35 (2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for approval of the in-house research and development facility and also to approve the expenditure incurred by the petitioner company for such research and development work on the basis of which the petitioner company would be entitled to claim the weighted deduction at the specified rate against its income for the relevant year under the aforesaid provisions of the Act.

(2.) Though the research and development facility were duly approved by the 1st respondent, Mr R R Abhyankar, Scientist G for and on behalf of the Secretary Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR), Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi vide Annexure A dated 13.8.2009, but in the prescribed approval for expenditure vide Annexure C in Form 3CL given by the successor-in-office on 20.1.2014 by Mr K V S P Rao, Scientist G of the same Department, the total research and development expenditure (including land and building) for two R & D Units, was approved by the said authority to the extent of Rs.6855.52 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2011-12 (as against Rs. 6915.18 lakhs claimed by the assessee) and RS.3842.88 lakhs (as against Rs.3898.39 lakhs claimed by the assessee) for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

(3.) The assesse filed a representation to the said Department vide Annexure F on 4.3.2015 that the assessee found certain differences on the amount of expenditure as claimed by the assessee as the amount of expenditure entitled for approval and deduction under S.35(2AB) of the Act and the amount approved by the said authority, and that as inquired by them over telephone and as orally communicated to them, though no such reason for deduction was assigned in writing in the impugned order Annexure C dated 20.1.2015 and therefore, the assessee company was of the belief that the capital expenditure other than land and building (motor vehicles) and recurring expenses (salary and wages) paid to the trainees and apprentices was the amount of difference in the aforesaid two assessment years to the extent of Rs.59.69 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and Rs.55.51 lakhs for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee, therefore, requested the said respondent No.1 authority to reconsider the approval for the reduced amount under the order impugned and to revise the same upwardly on the basis of the amount of R & D expenditure actually incurred by them. Since such revision of the amount was not made by the respondent authority, the petitioner company has filed the present writ petition before this Court.