CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

326 ITR 251High Court2010#476 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 366,444 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 14A Section 115JB Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expenditure weighted deduction section 35(2ab)r&d expenditure section 35(1)section 35 depreciation on goodwill section 80ic additional depreciation section 32(1)section 80ib section 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 293/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…have the power of set aside and CIT (A) did not allow the claim u/s 35(2AB) but u/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is appro…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 292/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…have the power of set aside and CIT (A) did not allow the claim u/s 35(2AB) but u/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is appro…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 291/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…have the power of set aside and CIT (A) did not allow the claim u/s 35(2AB) but u/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is appro…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 290/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…have the power of set aside and CIT (A) did not allow the claim u/s 35(2AB) but u/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is appro…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 289/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…have the power of set aside and CIT (A) did not allow the claim u/s 35(2AB) but u/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is appro…

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1860/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…e case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 807/Ahd/2010 and others, dated 14.08.2015); (ii) CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd (214 Taxman 0672); (iii) SRI Biotech Laboratories India Ltd vs. ACIT (36 ITR (Trib) 88); (iv) CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd (326 ITR 251) (Guj) and (v) CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd (335 ITR 117) (Guj) 8. Referring to the decision of Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra) it was submitted that the later decision of the ITAT has analysed the Explanation to section 32(2AB) which was approved by the Gujarat High Court. Since the decision has not considered the Explanation given, the…

Godavari Biorefineries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5824/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. A C I T - 2(1)(2) 3Rd Floor, Somaiya Bhavan Room No. 561, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 45/47 M.G. Road, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aabcg2543C Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle Haria Respondent By: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…d circumstances of the case by confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,95,73,000/- and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. 335 ITR 117 and Gujarat High Court in Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251. 2 M/s. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. 3) The Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,95,73,000/- and not following rule of consistency and also ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (S…

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 485/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.G.Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35

…e case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 807/Ahd/2010 and others, dated 14.08.2015); (ii) CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd (214 Taxman 0672); (iii) SRI Biotech Laboratories India Ltd vs. ACIT (36 ITR (Trib) 88); (iv) CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd (326 ITR 251) (Guj) and (v) CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd (335 ITR 117) (Guj) 8. Referring to the decision of Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra) it was submitted that the later decision of the ITAT has analysed the Explanation to section 32(2AB) which was approved by the Gujarat High Court. Since the decision has not considered the Explanation given, the…

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hanon Climate Systems India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Visteon Climate Systems Limited India Ltd), New Delhi

Accordingly decided against the Revenue while ground no. 2 is decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is allowed partly

ITA 5813/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5813/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 35

…e for deduction. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in relying on the proposition laid down in the cases of CIT vs Claris Life Sciences Ltd. [2010] 6 5813.Del.2018 M/s. Hanon Climate Systems India P. Ltd. 326 ITR 251 and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs UOI [2017] 84 taxmann.com 45 in holding that the cut-off date mentioned in the approval by the DSIR is not relevant to claim weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), not appreciating that the said cases are clearly distinguishable on facts as approval granted in present case clearly mentions that expenditure incurred only d…

ACIT Ltu 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Wheels India Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1697/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 14ASection 35

…ll Annexures giving the particulars of expenditure incurred in the approved R&D facilities and hence, the appellant's claim of weighted deduction ought to have been allowed. 3.2 The appellant relies on the following decisions: CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd - 326 ITR 251 (Guj) Wheels India Ltd - 336 ITR 513 (Mad) Cadilia Healthcare Ltd Vs Addl.CIT - 2012-TIOL-366- ITAT-Ahm 4. The CIT(A) erred in remitting back the allocation of R&D Expenditure in the computation of 80-IC unit Rs. 24, 84, 941/-. 4.1 The ClT ought to have appreciated that RaD unit has no direct proximate connection with the 80IC unit 4.2 The CIT ou…

ACIT Ltu 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Wheels India Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1696/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 14ASection 35

…ll Annexures giving the particulars of expenditure incurred in the approved R&D facilities and hence, the appellant's claim of weighted deduction ought to have been allowed. 3.2 The appellant relies on the following decisions: CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd - 326 ITR 251 (Guj) Wheels India Ltd - 336 ITR 513 (Mad) Cadilia Healthcare Ltd Vs Addl.CIT - 2012-TIOL-366- ITAT-Ahm 4. The CIT(A) erred in remitting back the allocation of R&D Expenditure in the computation of 80-IC unit Rs. 24, 84, 941/-. 4.1 The ClT ought to have appreciated that RaD unit has no direct proximate connection with the 80IC unit 4.2 The CIT ou…

Wheels India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Umit-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1605/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 14ASection 35

…ll Annexures giving the particulars of expenditure incurred in the approved R&D facilities and hence, the appellant's claim of weighted deduction ought to have been allowed. 3.2 The appellant relies on the following decisions: CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd - 326 ITR 251 (Guj) Wheels India Ltd - 336 ITR 513 (Mad) Cadilia Healthcare Ltd Vs Addl.CIT - 2012-TIOL-366- ITAT-Ahm 4. The CIT(A) erred in remitting back the allocation of R&D Expenditure in the computation of 80-IC unit Rs. 24, 84, 941/-. 4.1 The ClT ought to have appreciated that RaD unit has no direct proximate connection with the 80IC unit 4.2 The CIT ou…

Wheels India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Umit-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed

ITA 1604/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1604 & 1605/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 14ASection 35

…ll Annexures giving the particulars of expenditure incurred in the approved R&D facilities and hence, the appellant's claim of weighted deduction ought to have been allowed. 3.2 The appellant relies on the following decisions: CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd - 326 ITR 251 (Guj) Wheels India Ltd - 336 ITR 513 (Mad) Cadilia Healthcare Ltd Vs Addl.CIT - 2012-TIOL-366- ITAT-Ahm 4. The CIT(A) erred in remitting back the allocation of R&D Expenditure in the computation of 80-IC unit Rs. 24, 84, 941/-. 4.1 The ClT ought to have appreciated that RaD unit has no direct proximate connection with the 80IC unit 4.2 The CIT ou…

India Pistons Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1574/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1574/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.India Pistons Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner Of Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Madhavaram High Road, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai-600 011. Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…the entire amount claimed by the Appellant as the expenditure has been incurred in the R&D facilities approved by the prescribed authority for the purpose of Section 35(2AB). The appellant relies on the following decisions: - CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd - 326 ITR 251 (Guj) Wheels India Ltd - 336 ITR 513 (Mad) Cadilia Helthcare Ltd Vs Addl.CIT - 2012 TIOL - 366 - ITAT (Ahm) 5.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have granted deduction under section 35(1)(iv) in respect of expenditure not approved by the DSIR. :: 3 :: 6. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallo…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…&D facilities should be approved by DSIR and such approval should be granted in Form 3CM. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj.). Further reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del). He contended that in the case in hand, there is no dispute that R&D facilities have been approved. The only dispute was in respect of the requisite certificate was not signed by the Secretary,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…&D facilities should be approved by DSIR and such approval should be granted in Form 3CM. In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj.). Further reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del). He contended that in the case in hand, there is no dispute that R&D facilities have been approved. The only dispute was in respect of the requisite certificate was not signed by the Secretary,…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1920/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 115JSection 131Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

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

…ssessment years prior to 01.04.2016. Further the issue under consideration is also covered in the favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Meco Instruments (P) Ltd. (7 taxmann.com 24), CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) and CIT Vs. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. (335 ITR 117). The Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Nath Bio Genes (India) Ltd. VS. ACIT in ITA No.367/PN/2012 dated 27.01.2014 held that the AO had merely disallowed the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the ground that the recognition obtained by the assessee was not in prescribed Form No.3CM as specified in Rule 6(…

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

…ssessment years prior to 01.04.2016. Further the issue under consideration is also covered in the favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Meco Instruments (P) Ltd. (7 taxmann.com 24), CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) and CIT Vs. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. (335 ITR 117). The Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Nath Bio Genes (India) Ltd. VS. ACIT in ITA No.367/PN/2012 dated 27.01.2014 held that the AO had merely disallowed the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the ground that the recognition obtained by the assessee was not in prescribed Form No.3CM as specified in Rule 6(…

DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, Chennai vs. Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals filed by the revenue for both the assessment years ...

ITA 3044/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2901 & 2902/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 67 Chamiers Road, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 028. Chennai – 600 034 [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3043 & 3044/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Assistant Commissioner Of Turbo Energy Private Limited, Income Tax, V. 67 Chamiers Road, Large Tax Payer Unit -2, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aaact-2916-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Bhoopathi, Addl. CIT

Section 2(29)(BA)Section 35Section 40Section 80I

…by the appellant prescribed in the statute. Following the decision of assessee's own case in ITA No- 351/2013 dated 03.05.2017 the claim of the appellant should be allowed. 3.2 The appellant relies on the following decisions:- CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd - 326 ITR 251 (Guj) Wheels India Ltd - 336 ITR 513 (Mad) Cadilia Healthcare Ltd Vs Addl.CIT -2012-TIOL-366- ITAT-Ahm 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the restriction of deprecation on UPS @ 15% as against the claim of the appellant @ 60%. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that UPS being part…