BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

KANT, AM appeals by the assessee and t arate orders, passed by the Ld als) – 51, Mumbai [in short ‘the 016-17 and 2018-19 respectivel see are permeating through sa and therefore, these appea ed off by way of this consolidate e up the cross-appeals of the ment year 2016-17. The ground al are reproduced as under:
Hon'ble CIT (A) 51, Mumbai has griev e addition of Rs. 46,51,891/- u/s 14A r.w
Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai in the orde raised by the Revenue in :
n the facts and circumstances of the ca
A) erred in deleting the disallowance of n n 36(1)(iii) without considering the fact tha o furnish conclusive evidence to demon were, in fact, made exclusively out of inter n the facts and circumstances of the ca
A) erred in deleting the disallowance of n n 36(1)(iii) of the Act by placing relia
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
2
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
he Revenue are d. Commissioner e Ld. CIT(A)’] for ly. The grounds ame set of facts als were heard ed order for the e assessee and ds raised by the vously erred in w.r 8D made by er u/s 143(3) of its appeal are ase and in law, notional interest at the assessee nstrate that the rest-free funds.
ase and in law, notional interest ance upon the judgement of Reliance Utilit distinguishab funds and t delineating t
Therefore, in analysis, the and not supp records.
3. Whether o the Ld. CIT(A) payment mad reports amou
1,50,00,000/
the Act to ass allows for de respect of an research, whi and also the applicability o aforesaid Sec expenditure development f in the instant
4. Whether o the Ld. CIT(A 1,55,05,321/
Rules, 1962 w established a investments.
5. The appell any of the gro
3. Briefly stated, f original return of in 14.10.2016 declaring revised on 28.11.201
The return of income and statutory notic
ITA No. 5408, f the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the ties & Power Ltd. without appreciating th ble as in the instant case, there is no clea the assessee has not maintained sepa the flow of interest-free and interest- the absence of a direct nexus and pr presumption applied by the Ld. CIT(A) orted by contemporaneous documentatio n the facts and circumstances of the ca
) erred in restricting the claim of deductio de to M/s. Ashapura Minchem Ltd. to pur unting to Rs. 3,50,00,000/- made by - and effectively allowing the deduction sessee without considering the fact that t eduction in respect of salary paid to e ny cost of material purchased used in ich is clearly not the matter in the case o e fact that the assessee's contention of Section 35(2AB) of the Act is also not ction allows deduction to a company in on scientific research on in-house facility approved by the prescribed auth case, the assessee has not done any exp n the facts and circumstances of the ca
A) erred in deleting the disallowance of e
- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of t without considering the fact that the as a clear nexus between the surplus f lant craves to leave, to add, to amend ound of appeal, if need be.
facts of the case are that the a ncome for the year under co g total income at Rs.72,11,01,0
15 declaring total income at Rs.
e filed by the assessee was selec ces were issued and complied
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
3
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
n u/s 35(1)(i) of the said section mployees or in n the scientific of the assessee regarding the t correct as the respect of any research and hority, whereas penditure on.
ase and in law, expenses of Rs.
the Income Tax sessee has not funds and the and/or to alter assessee filed its onsideration on 80/- which was 72,94,66,950/-.
cted for scrutiny d with. In the assessment complete
Assessing Officer ma u/s 36(1)(iii) amoun research and develop amounting to Rs.35
payment of the e amounting to Rs.6,4
to Rs.46,08,954/- a amounting to Rs.1,55
4. On further appe the assessee. Aggriev appeal before the T above.
5. The ground No.
4 of the appeal of relation to disallowan
1962 (in short ‘the Ru
5.1 Brief facts qua reported exempt inco disallowance, conten
Abrasives Ltd.' were and reserves (amoun
(AO) rejected this "s
ITA No. 5408, ed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 3
de additions (i) disallowance of nting to Rs.43,86,610/-; (ii) pment expenses claimed u/s 35
5,00,00,000/- ; (iii) disallowa employee’s contribution to p
9,073/- ; (iv) prior period expen and (vi) disallowance u/s 14
5,05,320/- etc.
eal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowe ved, both the assessee and the Tribunal raising the grounds
1 of the appeal of the assessee the Revenue are inter connec nce u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Inc ules’).
a the issue in dispute are tha ome of ₹53,83,764/- but offere nding that its strategic investm funded entirely by its own inte nting to ₹116.86 Crores). The A strategic investment" plea, citi
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
4
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
31.12.2018, the interest claimed disallowance of 5(1)(ii) of the Act ance of delayed provident fund nses amounting
4A of the Act ed the appeal of Revenue are in as reproduced and ground No.
cted and are in come-tax Rules, at the Assessee ed no suo motu ments in 'Orient erest-free capital
Assessing Officer ing the Hon’ble

Supreme Court’s rul applied Rule 8D
₹46,51,891/- (Admin
Officer, the assess precluding the possib expenses and exemp
Officer noticed that a for exempt income y
The contention of th nature and therefore by the Assessing O
Supreme Court in th
Appeal No. 104-109
that dominant purpo not relevant while
According to the Ass was held by the as would trigger the Consequently expen income must be dis dissatisfaction to th
Income-tax Rules a expenses in proport
Rs.1,08,53,323/- un
Officer also made di
ITA No. 5408, ling in Maxopp Investment L to disallow ₹1,08,53,323/- nistrative Expenses). According t ee had maintained consolid bility of establishing one-to-one pt income yielding investments assessee had not maintained sep yielding investment and for bus he assessee that investment w e, no disallowance was called fo fficer relying on the decision he case of Maxopp Investment L of 2016), wherein Hon’ble Supr ose for which the investment wa making disallowance u/s 14
sessing Officer, the dividend ea sessee company as non-taxab applicability of section 14A diture which is attributable t allowed. The Assessing Officer he claim of the assessee invok and made disallowance for in tion of investment, which wa nder Rules 8D(2)(ii) of Rules.
sallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
5
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
td. v. CIT, and (Interest) and to the Assessing dated accounts, e nexus between
. The Assessing parate accounts siness activities.
were strategic in for, was rejected of the Hon’ble
Ltd. v. CIT (Civil reme Court held as into shares, is 4A of the Act.
arned on shares ble, therefore, it A of the Act.
to the dividend after recording ked Rule 8D of ndirect interest as computed at The Assessing i) at the rate of 0.5% of the aver
Rs.46,51,891/-.
5.2 On further app expenses so comput quantum of exempt examined the comp
Assessing Officer and funds for investmen therefore, no disallow called for. The Ld.
Bombay High Court and CIT v. Reliance accordingly deleted expenditure.
5.3 But in respect sustained the disall investment. Followin
Investment Ltd. repo
Assessing Officer to actually yielded exem
CIT(A) noted that add of exempted income disallowance to Rs.4
CIT(A) is reproduced
ITA No. 5408, rage investment which was peal before Ld. CIT(A), it wa ted in relation to exempt incom t income earned. The Ld. CIT putation of the Rule 8D carri d held that assessee was havin nt in exempted income earni wance for interest on proportio
CIT(A) relied on the decision in the case of HDFC Bank Lt e Utilities and Power Ltd. 313
d the disallowance for in t of administrative expenses, lowance at the rate of 0.5%
ng the decision of the Special orted in 165 ITD 27 , the ld CIT restrict the average of investm mpt income during the relevan dition of Rs.46,51,891/- was le e earned and accordingly he
46,51,891/-. The relevant find as under:
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
6
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
computed to as claimed that me, exceeds the T(A) accordingly ied out by the g sufficient own ing shares and onate basis was of the Hon’ble d. 366 ITR 505
3 ITR 340 and ndirect interest the Ld. CIT(A) of the average
Bench in Vireet
T(A) directed the ments which had nt year. The Ld.
ss than amount e restricted the ding of the Ld.

“11.5.8 The le be given retr subsequent d same it is hel to the insta appellant tha income is allo
11.5.9 Comin
8D, it is se
1,08,53,323/
attributable t account of the income. As fo
High Court, i
Utilities & Pow under Rule 8
exceed the in such as Wels
AYM Syntex L
8D(2)(ii) is un funds. In the Rs.74.74 Cror its share cap
Crores. Theref it is held tha surplus fund
Rs. 1,08,53,3
11.5.10 With expenses @ 0
in Vireet Inve those investm the relevant f
The Mumbai taxmann.com
1626, also he expenses und are to be co which yielde investment of from which th done by the A Rs.46,51,891
exempt incom appellant is p
ITA No. 5408, egal principle that the amendment to Sect rospective effect has been followed be decisions of Mumbai ITAT. Respectfully ld that the amendment to Section 14A can ant assessment year. Therefore, the at the amount of disallowance cannot exc owed.
ng to the computation of disallowance in een that the AO has computed an a - U/r Rule 8D(2)(ii) on account of in to the investment and Rs.46,51,891/- U e average value of investments that have or Rule 8D(2)(ii) is concerned, the juri ic in HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) and wer Ltd. (313 ITR 340), has ruled that n
8D(2)(ii) is warranted if the assessee's nvestments in shares. Additionally, the I spun Corp Ltd., Welspun Steel Ltd., Wels
Ltd., has consistently held that disallowa nwarranted when investments are mad instant year the appellant has made an res in the shares of M/s Orient Abrasive pital and free reserves are to the tune efore, respectfully following the decisions at no disallowance can be done U/r 8D of the appellant exceeds the investment.
323/-is therefore deleted.
h respect to Rule 8D(2)(iii) providing for 0.5% of the average investments, the ITAT estments Pvt. Ltd. (165 ITD 27) has cla ments that have actually yielded exempt financial year should be included in th
Tribunal in the case of Raoul Thackers m 692 and Reliance Power Ltd. v DCIT 15
eld that for the purpose of making the d der section 14A as per rule 8D only tho nsidered for computing average value ed exempt income during the year. S f the appellant is in M/s Orient Abrasiv he appellant has earned exempt income, t
AO is in line with the above decisions.
/- done by the AO U/r 8D(2)(iii) being me is therefore confirmed. This ground of partly allowed.”
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
7
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
tion 14A cannot e several other y following the nnot be applied ground of the ceed the exempt n terms of Rule amount of Rs.
nterest expense
U/r 8D(2)(iii) on yielded exempt ctional Bombay
CIT v. Reliance no disallowance surplus funds
ITAT, in several spun India Ltd., ance under Rule de from surplus n investment of es Limited while of Rs. 116.86
as cited above,
D(2)(ii) since the The addition of r calculation of T Special Bench arified that only t income during he computation.
ey V DCIT 165
59 taxmann.com disallowance of ose investments of investments
Since the sole es Limited that the computation
The addition of g less than the of appeal of the 5.4 We have heard relevant material on with the deletion o assessee is aggrieve
Rs.46,51,891/-. The made under Rule
Presumption" establi
Reliance Utilities &
(supra). The law is mixed fund" compr funds, and the intere to cover the impugne investments were m
Assessee’s reserves investment (₹74.74 C deletion of the intere of appeal of the Reven
5.5 As far as the d rule 8D(2)(iii) is conc decision of the Speci and therefore, we do
CIT(A) on the issue
Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the assessee is also accor
ITA No. 5408, d rival submission of parties a n record. Before us, the Reven f addition of Rs.1,08,53,323/
ed with the sustaining of t
Ld. CIT(A) deleted the intere e
8D(2)(ii)]by invoking the shed by the Juri ictional High
& Power Ltd. (supra) and HD well-settled. Where an Assess rising both interest-bearing an est-free funds (Capital + Reserve ed investments, a presumption made out of interest-free fun
(₹116.86 Crores) comfortab
Crores), we find no infirmity in est disallowance. Accordingly, th nue is dismissed.
disallowance of administrative e cerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has alrea ial Bench of Vireet Investment P o not find any infirmity in the o in dispute in relation to disa e Rules. The ground no. 1 of rdingly dismissed.
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
8
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
nd perused the nue is aggrieved
-, whereas the the addition of est disallowance
"Principle of Court in CIT v.
DFC Bank Ltd.
see possesses a nd interest-free es) are sufficient n arises that the nds. Since the bly exceed the the Ld. CIT(A)’s he ground no. 4
expenses under ady relied on the Pvt. Ltd. (supra) order of the Ld.
allowance under f appeal of the 6. Now, we take u
Revenue. The facts assessee had adva
Prashansha Ceramic but no interest was c noted that assessee account under the h of the borrowing. A nexus between the claimed on the borro assessee to interest
12.5% corresponding
Rs.43,86,610/-, be d facts and circumstan the Hon’ble Juri ict
Utility and Power Lt finding of the Ld. CIT
“7.3.1 I have submissions submissions p by the appella
FY 2007-08 t the assessme fresh loan ad loan by PCL submitted a c
Rs.4,74,86,71
interest amou whereas of pertained to disallowed by ITA No. 5408, p the ground Nos. 1 and 2 of th in brief qua the issue in di anced loan of Rs.3,65,55,0
c Ltd. out of borrowed interest charged form said entity. The A had debited interest in the head ‘interest paid against loan
According to the Assessing Off interest free loans and the wed funds and therefore, he ca on borrowed funds calculated g to interest free advances, w disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A) after nces of the case and relying on tional High Court in the case of td. (supra) deleted the additio
T(A) is reproduced as under:
e duly considered the contentions of th made by the appellant. As is evid placed on record that the interest free a ant to PCL originated in the FY 2000-01 a that PCL came to owe money to the appe ent year under consideration is concerne dvanced, much to the contrary there was L amounting to Rs. 6,04,335/-. The comprehensive breakup of the total inter
13/- claimed by it in its P&L a/c accordin unting to Rs.2.38 Crores pertained to the balance interest, an interest of interest paid on income tax which y the appellant and the balance intere
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
9
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
he appeal of the ispute are that 083/- to M/s t bearing funds
Assessing Officer profit and loss
’ and other cost ficer, there was given expenses alled upon to the d at the rate of which comes to considering the n the decision of f CIT v. Reliance n. The relevant he AO and the dent from the advances given and it was from ellant. As far as d there was no a repayment of appellant also rest expense of ng to which only general loans
Rs.1.09 crores was already st pertained to loans taken which no ques
7.3.2 The app in the form o stood at Rs.
balances of 2015-16 and point in time w
The Hon. Bom
Ltd. (313 ITR appeal in favo
"10. If there b to meet its i raised a loan interest-free f
East India Ph consider the India Ltd. (s
Supreme Cou in essence an the relevant y of the busin entitled to cla argument had contention ha answered. It Calcutta High sufficient to deposited in t it should be p the year and business. It n material and Court. The p available both presumption interest-free f interest-free f case this pre both by the CI
7.3.3 Respectf
340) when dealing with a similar questi our of the assessee and at para 10 held a be interest-free funds available to an ass nvestments and at the same time the it can be presumed that the investments funds available. In our opinion the Sup harmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra) had t decision of the Calcutta High Court in W supra) where a similar issue had aris rt it was argued that it should have been nd true character the taxes were paid out year and not out of the overdraft account ness and in these circumstances the aim the deductions. The Supreme Court d considerable force, but considering th ad not been advanced earlier it did no t then noted that in Woolcomber's ca h Court had come to the conclusion that t meet the advance tax liability and th the overdraft account of the assessee and presumed that the taxes were paid out o not out of the overdraft account for the noted that to raise the presumption, there the assessee had urged the contention b principle therefore would be that if th h interest-free and overdraft and/or loan would arise that investments would fund generated or available with the c funds were sufficient to meet the inves sumption is established considering the CIT(A) and Tribunal."
tfully following the decision of the Hon'bl eld that since the surplus fund of the ap investment made, the assumption has t nt was made out of the surplus fund. G
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
10
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
n of vehicle for st free balances
1.3.2016 which aced on record
2000-01 to FY balances at no es given to PCL.
tilities & Power ion allowed the as under:
essee sufficient assessee had s were from the preme Court in the occasion to Woolcombers of sen. Before the n presumed that of the profits of for the running appellant was noted that the he fact that the ot require to be ase (supra) the the profits were he profits were d in such a case of the profits of e running of the e was sufficient before the High here are funds ns taken, then a be out of the company, if the stments. In this e finding of fact e Bombay High ppellant was in to be there that Ground No. 2 of the appeal is is directed to amounting to 6.1 We have heard the relevant materia deletion of a ₹43,86
advances made to M grievance is centered
"direct fund flow an nexus" ignores the surplus funds. The L in earlier years; (ii) N
There was repaymen a categorical finding were consistently hig in Reliance Utilitie interest-free funds is interest-bearing borr followed the decision deleting the addition,
Ld. CIT(A) on the issu notional interest disa of the appeal of the R
7. The ground No disallowance made b
ITA No. 5408, therefore allowed in favour of the appell delete the disallowance of notional intere
Rs. 43,86,610/-.”
rival submissions of the parti als on record. The Revenue
6,610/- disallowance concerni
M/s Prashansha Ceramic Ltd.
d on the absence of a "one-to-o alysis." The Revenue’s insisten established judicial presump
Ld. CIT(A) found that (i) the adva
No fresh advance was given duri nt during the year. The Ld. CIT( of fact that the Assessee’s int gher than the advances given. A es (supra), once the availabili s established, the Revenue cann rowings were diverted. Since the n of the Hon’ble Juri ictional H
, we do not find any infirmity in ue in dispute. Consequently, th allowance is upheld. The groun
Revenue are accordingly dismiss o. 3 of the appeal of the Rev by the Assessing Officer weighe
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
11
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
ant and the AO est u/s 36(1)(iii) ies and perused challenges the ing interest-free
The Revenue’s one nexus" or a nce on a "direct ption regarding ances originated ing the year; (iii)
(A) has recorded erest-free funds
As per the ratio ity of sufficient not surmise that e Ld. CIT(A) has High Court while the order of the e deletion of the nd Nos. 1 and 2
sed.
venue relates to ed deduction for research and develop the assessee at Rs.3
Ld. CIT(A) to the exte
7.1 The assessee h disallowance sustain considered u/s 37(1) assessee is reproduce
Ground No 3 :
1. That the allowing the Innovation &
instead of u/s 7.1.1 Since the addi purely legal in nature same is admitted fo
Hon’ble Supreme Co
Company Ltd. reporte
7.2 The facts in bri
Assessing Officer the of Rs.3,50,00,000/- respect of researc
Rs.2,00,00,000/- . I contributed Rs.2,00,0
were having in use r
DSIR and valid up t
ITA No. 5408, pment expenses claimed u/s 35(
,50,00,000/- which has been r ent of actual expenditure of Rs.2
as filed additional ground requ ned by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 35( of the Act. The additional groun ed as under:
::
Hon'ble CIT (A) 51, Mumbai has griev claim of Rs 2,00,00,000 paid by the a Knowledge Centre of Ashapura Minech s 37(1) of the Act.
itional ground raised by the e and not requiring investigation or adjudication following the ourt in the case of National ed in 229 ITR 383 (SC).
ief qua the issue in dispute are e assessee claimed average weig u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act at the r h and development expens
It was claimed by the assess
00,000/- to M/s Ashapura Min research and development cent to 31.03.2016, which was furt
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
12
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
(1)(ii) claimed by restricted by the 2,00,00,000/-.
uesting that the (1)(ii) should be nd raised by the vously erred in appellant to the hem u/s 35(1)(i) assessee being n of fresh facts , decision of the Thermal Power e that before the ghted deduction rate of 175% in ses debited of see that it had nechem Ltd. who tre approved by ther renewed to 31.03.2019. The As Ashapura Minechem u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Ac of M/s Ashapura M
35(1)(ii) of the Act. A claim of the assessee
“The submiss the same is evidence sub the conditions
Further, secti any sum paid
Provided that 1. Is registere
2. Has as its 3. Fulfils such Rule 5F(1)(e) of furnishing
139, furnish containing he
1. A detailed previous year
2. A summa international j
3. Any patent the year;
4. Any patent the year;
5. Programm forthcoming y
ITA No. 5408, ssessing Officer however not Ltd. had not fulfilled the condit ct. The assessee failed to substa inechem Ltd. under the provis
Accordingly, the Assessing Offi observing as under:
sion of the assessee has been carefully c not acceptable as assessee has not bstantiating that Ashapura Mincechem L s prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Inco ion 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clea d to a company must be used by it for scie t such company_
ed in India main object to scientific research and dev h other conditions as maybe prescribed in states that company shall, every year, b the return of income under sub-section a statement to the Commissioner o following information, namely note on the research work undertaken b r; ary of research articles published i journals during the year; ts or other similar rights applied for or re ts or other similar rights applied for or re me of research projects to be undertak year and the financial allocation for such s
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
13
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
ticed that said tions prescribed antiate eligibility sions of section cer rejected the considered and produced any Ltd. fulfilled all ome Tax Act.
arly states that entific research:
velopment.
n Rule 5F.
by the due date n (1) of section of Income Tax by it during the in national or egistered during egistered during ken during the subjects.

The books of main busines
It is to be no dated 19.11. incidental or a Therefore, a developement
Minechem Ltd the Income Ta
Moreover in th
Act clearly st conditions as However as Commissione a. A detailed previous year
1. A summa international j
2. Any patent the year;
3. Any patent the year;
4. Programm forthcoming y
Further, the a documentary assessee has documentary vis- à-vis the no certificate
Accordingly, claimed by th
7.3 On further appe that expenses was f view of such statem
ITA No. 5408, f accounts of Ashapura Minechem Limi ss activity is mineral exploration, mining a oted that the assessee has admitted v
.2018 that as research and developm ancillary to the attainment of the main obj assessee claim towards scientific t Rs.3,50,00,000/- cannot be allowed d. not fulfilled the provisions stated in Sec ax Act.
he same provision of Section 35(1)(iia) of tates that assessee company should fu prescribed in Rule 5F.
sessee has not filed any statemen r of Income Tax in terms of the said rule w note on the research work undertaken b r; ary of research articles published i journals during the year; ts or other similar rights applied for or re ts or other similar rights applied for or re me of research projects to be undertak year and the financial allocation for such s assessee has also not furnished the requi evidences for the allowability of sa s not been able to substantiate the same evidences and also the nexus of claim of business activities carried out by the ass e and other details filed in support the said Research and Developmen he assessee is hereby disallowed.”
eal before the Ld. CIT(A), the a for obtaining a report from sa ment, the Ld. CIT(A) disallowe
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
14
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
ted states that and trading etc.
ide submission ment activity is bject.
research
&
d as Ashapura ction 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax ulfils such other nt before the which contains- by it during the in national or egistered during egistered during ken during the subjects.
isite details and aid claim. The e with requisite f said expenses sessee and also of the claims.
nt expenditure assessee claimed aid company. In ed the weighted claim of deduction
Rs.2,00,00,000/- ins
Act claimed by the as 7.4 We have heard the relevant material claim of the assesse
Since the reports we assessee expenses h been allowed u/s 35( allowed u/s 37 of the purpose of the busin reproduced as under “8.3.1 The fac the instant gr weighed ded research U/s case are that during the rel reports from Minechem Li
Refractory an been paid an Bauxite for w centre is app
Research (DS income, the 3,50,00,000/
amount paid deduction on evidence to payment has 35(1)(ii) of the The AO has including the p
ITA No. 5408, n and restricted the expens stead of weighed deduction u/s ssessee.
rival submissions of the parti ls on record. The Ld. CIT(A) ha e in the light of the reports pl ere relevant to the line of the has been allowed but inadverte
(1)(i) of the Act whereas same sh e Act as incurred wholly and ex ness. The relevant finding of th
:
cts of case have been considered. The is round of appeal pertains to the claim of t duction on account of contribution tow
35(1)(ii) amounting to Rs.3,50,00,000/-.
the appellant has made a payment of Rs levant assessment year towards obtainin the Innovation and Knowledge Centre imited, first being report on Calcine nd Abrasive Application for which Rs. 5
nd second being report on Beneficiation which Rs. 1,50,00,000/- has been paid proved by the Department of Scientific
SIR) under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. I appellant claimed a weighted ded
- under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, being d. The AO however disputed the claim the ground that the appellant has not suggest that Ashapura Minechem Ltd been made fulfils all the condition laid d e Act, under which weighted deduction c however disallowed the entire claim of payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/-.
Bombay Minerals Ltd.
15
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
ses debited of s 35(1)(ii) of the ies and perused as examined the aced on record.
business of the ently same has hould have been xclusively for the he Ld. CIT(A) is ssue involved in the appellant of wards scientific
The facts of the s.2,00,00,000/- ng two research e of Ashapura ed Bauxite for 0,00,000/- has n of Low-Grade d. The research and Industrial
In its return of duction of Rs.
g 1.75 times the m of weighted t produced any to whom this down in Section can be claimed.
f the appellant

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ITA No. 5408, d of appeal of the Revenue the additional ground of the year 2018-19, the assessee h relation to disallowance of exp the Rules. Since identical is in assessment year 2016-17
g in assessment year 2016-17
ee is decided mutatis mutandis.
appeal of the Revenue for appeal of the assessee for AY 20
or AY 2018-19 is dismissed.
ced in the open Court on 12/0
AJAGOPAL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

Bombay Minerals Ltd.
17
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
is accordingly appeal of the has raised only penses u/s 14A ssue has been and therefore,
, the ground of AY 2016-17 is 016-17 is partly
03/2026. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

ITA No. 5408,

BY OR (Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Bombay Minerals Ltd.
18
, 5409 & 5410/MUM/2025
RDER, egistrar) umbai