CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

326 ITR 251High Court2010#473 most cited

What is CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. authority for?

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

196

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. · 326 ITR 251 · Section 35(2AB) · weighted deduction · scientific research expenditure · R&D centre approval · DSIR approval timing · eligibility for entire expenditure · in-house R&D · previous year expenditure

Also reported as

174 Taxmann 11320 Taxmann.com 682

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 115JBSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expenditureweighted deductionsection 35(2ab)r&d expendituresection 35(1)section 35depreciation on goodwillsection 80icadditional depreciationsection 32(1)section 80ibsection 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CURADEV PHARMA P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1260/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit Vs Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4(2) 1St Floor, Vikash Puri, New Delhi West Delhi, Delhi-110018 Pan-Aadcc8368D Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Adv. [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito H-3/63, 1St Floor, Vikash Nfac, Delhi Puri, New Delhi-110018 Pan-Aadcc8368D Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit H-3/63, 1St Floor, Vikash Central Circle-4(2), Puri, New Delhi-110018 Delhi Pan-Aadcc8368D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca & Shri Samyak Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Section 126Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35Section 37(1)

…o- ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in ITA No.3569/Ahd/2004 vide order dated 13.11.2009 and further the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Claris Life Sciences Ltd. reported in 326 ITR 251 (Guj.). Ld. AR further submits that amendment in section 35(2AB) regarding approval from Ld. PCIT or DGIT for scientific research expenditure and weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act are applicable from 01.07.2016 relevant to AY 2017-18 onwards and not applicable for AY 2016-17 i.e. the year under appeal. He thus, submits that remuneration p…

ROTOFILT ENGINEERS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1628/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company

Section 143(3)Section 35

…,06,806/- and instead claimed depreciation on the R & D assets for a sum of Rs.26,26,717/-. 2.1. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant relied on judgments of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- M/s. Claris Lifesciences Ltd reported in [2010] 326 ITR 251 and M/s. Banco Products (India) Ltd. -Vs- DCIT reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 132, wherein it was held that even though the approval of DSRO has been received late and specifies the period for which deduction should be claimed, it does not bar the appellant to put up its claim for a deduction u/s.35(2AB) for the expenses incurred by it for the…

FLAMINGO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,SION TROMBAY ROAD CHEMBUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI , AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Ravindra Poojary,ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 35

…be entitled to weighted deductions of the\naforesaid expenditure incurred by the assessee in terms of the s.35(2AB) of\nthe Act and in coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the\njudgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences\nLtd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj). In its decision the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held\nthat the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate issued by the DSIR would be\nof no relevance. What is to be seen is that the assessee was in indulging in\nR&D activity and had incurred the expenditure thereupon. Once a certificate\nby DSIR is issued, that would be sufficient to hold t…

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2nd Floor, Mayur Place, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Ext., New Delhi – 110 091. (PAN : AAACS0206P) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2nd Floor, Mayur Place, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Ext., New Delhi – 110 091. (PAN : AAACS0206P) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2n…

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2nd Floor, Mayur Place, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Ext., New Delhi – 110 091. (PAN : AAACS0206P) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2nd Floor, Mayur Place, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Ext., New Delhi – 110 091. (PAN : AAACS0206P) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2n…

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1448/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2nd Floor, Mayur Place, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Ext., New Delhi – 110 091. (PAN : AAACS0206P) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2nd Floor, Mayur Place, Mayur Vihar Phase 1 Ext., New Delhi – 110 091. (PAN : AAACS0206P) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 10 (1), The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Delhi. Unit No.236 & 237, 2n…

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 804/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

…hted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The first issue which arises is the recognition of facility by the prescribed authority as provided in section 35(2AB) of the Act. 43. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj) have held that weighted deduction is to be allowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act after the establishment of facility. However, section does not mention any cutoff date or particular date for eligibility to claim deduction. The Hon'ble High Court held as under:- "8. The Tribunal has considered the submissions made on behalf of the assesse…

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

…ng approval of the in- house R&D Centre for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 35(2AB), which is admittedly in place in the facts of the present case:  Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT: 111 TTJ 902 (Ahd)  CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by the HC  CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the HC  Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR: 159 taxmann.com 558 (Del.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Guj.)  Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1057/2017)(Guj.)  DCIT vs. International Tractors Ltd.: ITA No. 58…

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

…ng approval of the in- house R&D Centre for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 35(2AB), which is admittedly in place in the facts of the present case:  Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT: 111 TTJ 902 (Ahd)  CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by the HC  CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the HC  Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR: 159 taxmann.com 558 (Del.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Guj.)  Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1057/2017)(Guj.)  DCIT vs. International Tractors Ltd.: ITA No. 58…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ANAND NVH PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

ITA 3612/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 35

…ed that while finalizing the assessment, the AO has ignored the decision of jurisdiction High Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., (2017) 397 ITR 728 (Delhi) and decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251 without assigning any reason despite of the fact that on identical issue the Hon'ble Courts have decided the issue in favour of assessee by saying that if the approval is granted by DSIR during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the entire expenditure i…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…ection 35(2AB) of the Act. The first issue which arises is the recognition of facility by the prescribed authority as provided in section 35(2AB) of the Act. 43. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 113/[2010] 326 ITR 251 have held that weighted deduction is to be allowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act after the establishment of facility. However, section does not mention any cutoff date or particular date for eligibility to claim deduction. The Hon'ble High Court held as under "8 The Tribunal has considered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and too…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…ection 35(2AB) of the Act. The first issue which arises is the recognition of facility by the prescribed authority as provided in section 35(2AB) of the Act. 43. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 113/[2010] 326 ITR 251 have held that weighted deduction is to be allowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act after the establishment of facility. However, section does not mention any cutoff date or particular date for eligibility to claim deduction. The Hon'ble High Court held as under "8 The Tribunal has considered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and too…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/323/2025HC Delhi21 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 260A

…his Court in Respondent’s own case reported in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. Union of India: 397 ITR 728 (Del.) − Covered in favour by following orders: • CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del.) • CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) Not raised in appeal 12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. ITA 323/2025 13. We find that identical proposed questions of law have been framed in this appeal as well. 14. In view of the fact that we have already dismissed ITA No. 321/2025, this appeal is also dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VI…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/321/2025HC Delhi21 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 260A

…his Court in Respondent’s own case reported in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. Union of India: 397 ITR 728 (Del.) − Covered in favour by following orders: • CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del.) • CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) Not raised in appeal 12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. ITA 323/2025 13. We find that identical proposed questions of law have been framed in this appeal as well. 14. In view of the fact that we have already dismissed ITA No. 321/2025, this appeal is also dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VI…

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

…AO has wrongly applied the same in the year under appeal. He placed reliance on the following judgements:-  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India: 397 ITR 728 (Del)  CIT v. Sandan Vikas India Ltd: 335 ITR 117 (Del.)  CIT v. Claris Life sciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Mad.)  Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. v. PCIT: 167 ITD 118 (Kol. Trib.)  ACIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.: [2017] 86 taxmann.com 162 (Mum. Trib.)  ACIT v. Meco Instruments (P.) Ltd. [2010] 7 taxmann.com 24 (Mum. Trib.)  DCIT v. International Tractors Ltd.: ITA No. 5817/6071 of Delhi/2010 (Del.…

SANDHAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE LTU-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 7169/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.7168 और 7169/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16 और 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Tarun Chanana, Utkarsa Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “जी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एम. बालागणेश, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7168 और 7169/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16 और 2016-17) ITA Nos.7168 & 7169/DEL/2019(A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Sandhar Technologies Ltd., B-6/20, LSC, Safdarjung Enclave, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110029 PAN: AAACS-0512-J बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle-1, LTU, New Delhi Assessee by : S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Tarun Chan…

SANDHAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE LTU-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 7168/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.7168 और 7169/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16 और 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Tarun Chanana, Utkarsa Gupta &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “जी”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एम. बालागणेश, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.7168 और 7169/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16 और 2016-17) ITA Nos.7168 & 7169/DEL/2019(A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Sandhar Technologies Ltd., B-6/20, LSC, Safdarjung Enclave, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110029 PAN: AAACS-0512-J बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle-1, LTU, New Delhi Assessee by : S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Tarun Chan…

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…., v. DCIT (ITA No.3236/Chny/2017) in para no. 4.3 on page 12 ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 14 :: - ACIT vs. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 338 (Mumbai - Trib.) - CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras) (AY 2012- 13) - Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 (Chennai -Trib.)” 6.4 In light of the above therefore, we hold that the lower authorities were not justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre- amended pre period and direct deletion of the disallowance of the weighted deduction of Rs.2,47,62,660/-. T…

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

ITA 2330/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…. DCIT (ITA No.3236/Chny/2017) in para no.\n4.3 on page 12\nITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16)\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.\n:: 14 ::\n- ACIT vs. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 338\n(Mumbai - Trib.)\n- CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras) (AY 2012-\n13)\n- Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 (Chennai -Trib.)\"\n6.4\nIn light of the above therefore, we hold that the lower authorities\nwere not justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre-\namended pre period and direct deletion of the disallowance of the\nweighted deduction of Rs.2,47,62,660/…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

…as placed on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2013–14 and 2014–15 in ITA No. ITA No.281 and 222/Ahd/2021 18 400/Ahd/2018, as well as on the decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [(2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj)] and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [(2013) 31 taxmann.com 300 (Guj)]. 23. In the said decision in assessee’s own case, the Co-ordinate Bench has extensively examined the scope of DSIR’s authority, the applicability of Rule 6(7A), and the evidentiary value of Form 3CL. It has been held that the Form 3CL merely reflects intimation of cost of in-hou…

Showing 1–20 of 196 · Page 1 of 10

...
CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) — Cited in 196 Judgments | BharatTax