NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to the amendment effective July 1, 2016, expenditure incurred on R&D, even if not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL, qualifies for deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility itself was approved.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed weighted deduction for R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB). The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of this expenditure, stating it was not certified by DSIR in Form 3CL. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether expenditure on R&D is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the R&D facility is approved but the expenditure is not certified annually by DSIR in Form 3CL, prior to the 2016 amendment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- K.P. Varghese v. ITO989 citing131 ITR 597 · 1981 · SC
- CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.196 citing326 ITR 251 · 2010 · HC
- CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.112 citing335 ITR 117 · 2011 · HC · Read judgment
- Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT47 citing162 ITD 484 · 2017 · ITAT
- CIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.34 citing250 Taxmann 270 · 2017 · HC
- Karnataka in Tejas Networks Ltd. v. DCIT14 citing233 Taxmann 426 · 2015 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM
Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 13.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trade of Ossein, DCP & Gelatin. The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 209.11.2012 declaring income of Rs. 5,93,17,460/-. The same was 2 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. revised on 18.02.2014 at a total income of Rs. 2,09,02,110/-.
Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Kochi (hereinafter called "the AO") vide orde
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Copper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Satara vs Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, SataraPune26 Feb 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Karnataka in Tejas Networks Ltd. v. DCIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) as claimed, rendering the alternate deductions under section 35(1)(iv) invalid. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal...
- Cummins India Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-TaxPune15 May 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on Karnataka in Tejas Networks Ltd. v. DCIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred on the R&D facility, as the facility was approved and the relevant rules prior to 2016 did n...
- Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs ACIT 7(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai26 May 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal decided to exclude the lockdown period when computing the 90-day limit for pronouncement of orders, considering it an extraordinary situation. The appeal was decided based on this interpretation.
- Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…Hyderabad8 Aug 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt LIBOR+200 basis points for interest on loans to AEs. Regarding corporate guarantees, the Tribunal followed a High Court ruling that such guarantees are international tra...
- Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd., Chandigarh vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), ChandigarhChandigarh4 Jun 2024Allowed
Also relies on Karnataka in Tejas Networks Ltd. v. DCIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the waiver of a loan from a private bank cannot be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii), 28(iv), or 41(1) of the Act. The amendment to Section 28 for such waivers is prospective and not app...
More judgments on Section 35(2AB)
- Aeon Formulations Private Limited, Chennai vs Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(1)…ITA 2481/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Devarsons Industries Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The D.C.I.T. Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs Income Tax Officer Circle 8, PuneITA 3206/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Pochjraja Industries Ltd., Hosur vs ACIT, Circle-1, HosurITA 1072/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
