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 366,469 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, 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 3043/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, 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 2902/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…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu(Appeal)-1, 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 2901/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

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…

Navin Flurine International, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6532/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6533/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2013-14) Navin Fluorine International Ltd. Suntech Centre, 2nd Floor, 37/40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai- 400 057. PAN: AABCP0464B ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.CIT-7(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... Respondent ITA No. 6816/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2013-14) Dy.CIT-10(3)(1), Room No. 217/212, 1st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. ..... Appellant Vs. Navin Fluorine International Ltd. Suntech Centre, 2nd Floor, 37…

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERA AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/s. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner IT(TP)A No. Hosur Road, of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), PAN: Bangalore. AAACI4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee by CA : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue by Standing Counsels for Dept. Date of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal ari…

M/S. India Pistons Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(va)

…long with all Annexures giving the particulars of expenditure incurred in the approved R&D facilities and hence, the appellant's claim of weighted deduction should be allowed. 2.2 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 Add.CIT 2012-TIOL-366-ITAT-Ahr 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of employees’ contribution towards PF / Superannuation / ESI amounting to Rs.45,46,142/- 3.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the…

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt./Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessmetnt Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1224/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 69CSection 92C(1)

…nder section35(2AB)ofthe Act. The first issue which arises is the recognition of facility by theprescribedauthority as provided in section 35(2AB) of the Act. 43. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2008] 174Taxman 113/[2010] 326 ITR 251 have held that weighted deduction is tobeallowedunder section I.T.A. No. 1224/Mum/2021 21 Assessment Year: 2016-17 35(2AB) of the Act after the establishment of facility. However, sectiondoes not mention any cutoff date or particular date for eligibility to claimdeduction. TheHon'ble High Court held as under:— "8. The Tribunal has considered the…

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

…it is clear that the Tribunal while deciding this issue has followed the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Microlab (supra) as well as decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Wheels India Pvt. Ltd. 336 ITR 513 wherein it was held that the income earned by the assessee from the R & D Centre cannot be reduced for the for the purpose of allowing the deduction under Section 35(2AB) because the said income is part of the total & 751/Bang/2014 income of the assessee. Accordingly in principle the issue was decided in favour of the assessee that the income ear…

Anand Nvh Production Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-01, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 8999/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.8999/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Anand Nvh Production Pvt. Jcit Vs. Ltd., Special Range-01, F-3/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaeca0297J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35

…ific and Industrial Research on 12.02.2016 and therefore claim for deduction cannot be considered for the AY 2015-16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maruti Udyog India Ltd. I.T.A.No.8999/Del/Del/2019 (397 ITR 728) submits that the assessee is entitled for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act for the AY 2015-16 though the approval was granted on 12.02.2016 by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 4. The Ld. DR…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8739/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

…research expenses incurred at approved in-house R & D facility are eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, whether incurred prior to or post the date of such approval by DSIR mentioned in Form 3CM i. CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) ii. CIT vs Sandan Vikas India Ltd. 335 ITR 117 (Del.) iii. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. 397 ITR 728 (Del.) b) Deduction under section 35(2AB) cannot be denied in respect of recognized in-house R & D centre even though approval in Form 3CM for the relevant years was under consideration or awaited. iv. CIT vs TVS Ele…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

…research expenses incurred at approved in-house R & D facility are eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, whether incurred prior to or post the date of such approval by DSIR mentioned in Form 3CM i. CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) ii. CIT vs Sandan Vikas India Ltd. 335 ITR 117 (Del.) iii. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. 397 ITR 728 (Del.) b) Deduction under section 35(2AB) cannot be denied in respect of recognized in-house R & D centre even though approval in Form 3CM for the relevant years was under consideration or awaited. iv. CIT vs TVS Ele…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda

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

ITA 1520/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…of Rs. 2303.34 lakh. However, the DSIR approved the Revenue expenses of Rs. 11973.91/- only and capital expenses of Rs. 2278/- lakh only. The assessee submitted that as per the order of the jurisdiction High court of Gujarat in case of Claris Lifescience Ltd (326 ITR 251) where it was held that entire expenditure incurred in connection with the approved in-house facility of R&D will be eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act irrespective of expenses approved by the DSIR in form 3CL. 111.1 The AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee and held that from the plain reading of the pro…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda

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

ITA 1519/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…of Rs. 2303.34 lakh. However, the DSIR approved the Revenue expenses of Rs. 11973.91/- only and capital expenses of Rs. 2278/- lakh only. The assessee submitted that as per the order of the jurisdiction High court of Gujarat in case of Claris Lifescience Ltd (326 ITR 251) where it was held that entire expenditure incurred in connection with the approved in-house facility of R&D will be eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act irrespective of expenses approved by the DSIR in form 3CL. 111.1 The AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee and held that from the plain reading of the pro…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1463/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…of Rs. 2303.34 lakh. However, the DSIR approved the Revenue expenses of Rs. 11973.91/- only and capital expenses of Rs. 2278/- lakh only. The assessee submitted that as per the order of the jurisdiction High court of Gujarat in case of Claris Lifescience Ltd (326 ITR 251) where it was held that entire expenditure incurred in connection with the approved in-house facility of R&D will be eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act irrespective of expenses approved by the DSIR in form 3CL. 111.1 The AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee and held that from the plain reading of the pro…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 1462/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

…of Rs. 2303.34 lakh. However, the DSIR approved the Revenue expenses of Rs. 11973.91/- only and capital expenses of Rs. 2278/- lakh only. The assessee submitted that as per the order of the jurisdiction High court of Gujarat in case of Claris Lifescience Ltd (326 ITR 251) where it was held that entire expenditure incurred in connection with the approved in-house facility of R&D will be eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act irrespective of expenses approved by the DSIR in form 3CL. 111.1 The AO disagreed with the contention of the assessee and held that from the plain reading of the pro…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1328/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…assessee is before us. 50. On this aspect, assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai-Trib), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del), Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at 250 Taxman 270 and Pune Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1285/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…assessee is before us. 50. On this aspect, assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai-Trib), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del), Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at 250 Taxman 270 and Pune Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1269/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…assessee is before us. 50. On this aspect, assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai-Trib), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del), Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at 250 Taxman 270 and Pune Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1268/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…assessee is before us. 50. On this aspect, assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai-Trib), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del), Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at 250 Taxman 270 and Pune Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1232/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022
Section 10B

…assessee is before us. 50. On this aspect, assessee placed reliance on the decision reported in Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai-Trib), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del), Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at 250 Taxman 270 and Pune Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576…