GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 9(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for AY 2006-07 in favor of the assessee on the ground of additional deduction under section 35(2AB)(1). For AY 2008-09, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was partly allowed regarding depreciation on intangible assets.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Gharda Chemicals Limited, engaged in manufacturing and sale of pesticides and other chemicals, filed appeals and cross-objections against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09. The appeals raised various grounds concerning deductions, disallowances, and additions.
What were the issues?
The key issues involved the eligibility for additional deduction on R&D expenditure, disallowance of interest, addition on account of unutilised modvat credit and excise duty on closing stock, and addition on account of excess depreciation on intangible assets.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 35(2AB)(1),Section 36(1)(iii),Section 2(22)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद� राजे� के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- Challenging the orders of the Cs.IT(A)the Assessing Officer (AO)and the assessee have filed the appeals/cross objections for the above mentioned assessment years(AY.s.),raising various grounds of appeal.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pesti-cides,insecticides, weedicides,veterinary-drugs and polymers.The details of filing of returns,returned incomes,assessed incomes etc.can be summarised as under: A.Y. ROI filed on Returned Assessment dt. Assessed Dt. of orders Income(Rs.) Income(Rs.) of CIT(A) 2006-07 29.11.2006 74,78,62,086/- 29.12.2008 160,49,85,410/- 13.01.2011 2008-09 31.10.2008 34,46,96,081/- 30.11.2010 81,06,19,820/- 28.06.2011 ITA/1375/Mum/2011,AY.2006-07: 2.The only ground of appeal is not allowing additional deduction of 50% (i.e 150% -100%) under section 35(2AB)(1) of the Act in respect of the expenditure of Rs. 15.57 crores incurred on in-house research and development activity carried out its Dombivili R&D facility. While deciding the appeals for the AY.s.2004-05 and 2005-06(ITA/5474/Mum/2009& ITA /5348/Mum/2009and ITA/8376/Mum/2010& ITA/8758/Mum/2010),we have sent back the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.Following the same,Ground no.1 is decided in favour of the assessee,in part.
1375/11-(3+1C.O.)Gharda Chemicals ITA/2321/Mum/2011,AY.2006-07: 3.First ground deals with deletion of disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.19.94 crores., u/s.36(1)(iii)of the Act.While deciding the appeals for the AY.s.2004-05 and 2005-06 (supra), we have decided the issue against the AO.Following the same,ground no.1 is dismissed. 4.Next ground of appeal is about deleting the addition of Rs.23.20 crores on account of unutilised modvat credit.We have restored back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.He is directed to decide the issue as per the directions given in the order for the AY.2003-04.Ground no.2 is decided in favour of the AO,in part. 5.Next ground deals with deleting the addition of Rs. 27.54 crores on account of excise duty on closing stock.As the issue is directly related with the earlier issue,so,same is also restored back to the file of the AO,who would decide it after hearing the assessee.Ground no.3 is partly allowed. 6.Last ground (GOA-5)pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.66 Crores made u/s.2(22)(e)of the Act.Following our order for the AY.s.2005-05(supra),ground no.5 is dismissed. ITA/6588/Mum/2001-AY.2008-09: 7.The solitary ground raised by the assessee is about deleting the addition of Rs.3.95 Crores on account of excess depreciation on intangible assets.We have decided the issue while adjudicating the appeal for the earlier years(supra).Following the same,we dismiss the ground raised by the AO. C.O/.No.139/M/2012,AY.2008-09: 8.During the course of hearing before us,the AR of the assesse did not press ground no.1. Hence,same stands dismissed as not pressed. 9.Second ground as about not mentioning the correct figure of depreciation with regard to the IPR.Before us,it was stated that the FAA had wrongly mentioned the figure of Rs.3,69,36,681 /- as against the correct amount of Rs.3,95,51,615/-.We are directing the AO verify the figure and take the correct figure.Ground no.2 is partly allowed. As a result, appeals filed by the assessee and the AO for the AY.06-07 are partly allowed. Appeal of the AO for the AY.2008-09 stand dismissed and CO for that year is partly allowed. फलतः िनधा�रती और िनधा�रती अिधकारी �ारा िन.व. 2006-07 के िलए दािखल क� गई अपील� आंिशक �प से मंजूर क� जाती ह�.िनधा�रती अिधकारी क� िन.व. 2008-09 क� अपील नामंजूर क� जाती है एवं िनधा�रती �ारा िन.व. 2008-09 दािखल ��या गया ��या�ेप आंिशक �प से मंजूर �कया जाता है. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April, 2016. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� �दनांक 29 अ�ैल , 2016 को क� गई । Sd/- Sd/- (सी. एन. �साद / C.N. Prasad ) (राजे�� / Rajendra) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद�य मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांकDated : 29.04.2016. Jv.Sr.PS. आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 2
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026