CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

64 SOT 246Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18231 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…Approval granted by Scientist G, we observe that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by following orders:  CIT vs. SandanVikas (India) Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del.)  CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.)  Ferment Biotech Ltd. v. ACIT: 64 SOT 246 (Mum. Trib.)  Vivimed Labs Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA No. 1882 of 2014 (Hyd. Trib.)  ACIT v. Meco Instruments (P.) Ltd.: ITA No.4246/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) We further observe that the department had not filed any appeal before the Delhi High Court against the order for AY 2010-11 on this issue till date. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…Approval granted by Scientist G, we observe that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by following orders:  CIT vs. SandanVikas (India) Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del.)  CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.)  Ferment Biotech Ltd. v. ACIT: 64 SOT 246 (Mum. Trib.)  Vivimed Labs Ltd. v. DCIT: ITA No. 1882 of 2014 (Hyd. Trib.)  ACIT v. Meco Instruments (P.) Ltd.: ITA No.4246/Mum/2012 (Mum. Trib.) We further observe that the department had not filed any appeal before the Delhi High Court against the order for AY 2010-11 on this issue till date. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we…

DCIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE vs. M/S EVEREST INDUSTRIES LTD. , DELHI

ITA 655/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R
Section 43(1)

…the appellant. The grievance of the AO that requisite certificate had been signed by Scientist-G and not the Secretary, DSIR, does not appear to be correct. This issue had been addressed by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACTT Vs. Ferment Biotech Ltd. (64 SOT 246) wherein it was held that the DSIR had authorized one of its Nodal Officers to issue order of approval on or behalf of the Secretary for the purpose of section 35(2AB) of the Act. Therefore where the certificate in Form 3CM was signed by Scientist-G then it had to be taken as approval by the DSIR itself. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Mumba…

EVEREST INDUSTRIAL LTD. ,NOIDA vs. DY CIT CIRCLE-1 , THANE

ITA 7792/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R
Section 43(1)

…the appellant. The grievance of the AO that requisite certificate had been signed by Scientist-G and not the Secretary, DSIR, does not appear to be correct. This issue had been addressed by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACTT Vs. Ferment Biotech Ltd. (64 SOT 246) wherein it was held that the DSIR had authorized one of its Nodal Officers to issue order of approval on or behalf of the Secretary for the purpose of section 35(2AB) of the Act. Therefore where the certificate in Form 3CM was signed by Scientist-G then it had to be taken as approval by the DSIR itself. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Mumba…

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4156/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A. TharFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar -DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ केकेकेके” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम एवं राम राम लाल राम लाल लाल नेगी लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4156/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर…

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (64 SOT 246) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax