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 366,470 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.

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1231/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…

Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1887/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35

…cannot restrict the deduction to part of the year. 5.4 Learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant is eligible for deduction U/s 35 (2AB) for the whole period based on the following decisions also: • CIT Vs Claris Life Sciences Limited [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj). • Sandan Vikas (India) Limited – 335 ITR 117 – (Del) HC. • Aarti industries Limited vs ADIT (ITA/370/Mum/2009) The Appellant carves leave to add, alter or modify the grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal. As evident, the sole grievance of the assessee is quantum of deduction u/s 35(2AB). 2. The Ld. AR relied…

Biological E Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1590/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…ity but not the expenditure. He placed reliance on the decisions dated 15/05/2018 in Cummins India Limited Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 309/PUN/2014, CIT Vs. Cadila Page 3 of 19 Healthcare Ltd (2013) 31 taxman.com 300 (Gujarat), CIT VS. Claris Lifesciences Ltd (2008) 174 Taxmann 113 (Gujarat), CIT VS. Sundan Vikas (India) Ltd (2012) 22 Taxmann.com 19 (Delhi), Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 970/AHD/2007, and Bharat Forge Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 13/PUN/2017 by order dated 14/11/2018 in support of his contention that the requirement under section 35(2AB) of the Act is the approval of the R&D facility but n…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 354/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…ed 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 Vs. Claris Life sciences 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 cut-off 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 asses…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 353/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…ed 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 Vs. Claris Life sciences 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 cut-off 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 asses…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1593/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…ed 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 Vs. Claris Life sciences 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 cut-off 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 asses…

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

…llowing decisions, the Hon'ble Courts have held that even though approval of concerned Ministry of Central Government was under consideration or awaited, the deduction under section 35(2AB) is available to the assesseee - CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Gujrat) (Copy is enclosed at page 319 to 321 of the paperbook) CIT vs TVS Electronics Ltd (2019) 419 ITR 187 (Madras) (Copy is enclosed at page 322 to 325 of the paperbook) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs CIT (2017) 397 ITR 728 (Delhi) (Copy is enclosed at page 326 to 336 of the paperbook) 23 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pv…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. 500082 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 189/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ld 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 vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj). In its decision the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court 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 that…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITA 188/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ld 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 vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj). In its decision the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court 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 that…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 187/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ld 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 vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj). In its decision the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court 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 that…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 186/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…ld 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 vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj). In its decision the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court 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 that…

Salvi Chemicals Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 13(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 300/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Salvi Chemicals बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. C/O. H.N. Motiwalla & Co. 400020. 508 Sharda Chambers 33 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs0142E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Harish Motiwalla (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.09.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Under Section A.Y. 2014-15 36(1)(Iv) R.W.S 36 (2Ab) Of The Act, Amounting To Rs, 1,88,97,692/-, Particularly When, The Order Under Section 35(2Ab) Of The Act (In Form No. 3Cm) Had Been Granted Registration Upto March 31,2012 & Renewed Upto March 31, 2015. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai, Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Amounting To Rs. 1,88,97,692/ Under Section 35(1)(Iv) R.W.S. 35 (2Ab) Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Decisions Submitted At The Time Of Hearing Or Without Distinguishing The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Motiwalla (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…35(1)(iv) and 35(2AB) was declined which is wrong against law and facts, therefore, the claim of the assessee is liable to be allowed in view of the law settled as under:- “(i) Judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) (ii) Judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (405 ITR 318) (iii) Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (397 ITR 728) (iv) Decision of Mumbai Tribunal in ACIT, Cir. 6(3) Vs. Meco Instruments Pvt. Ltd. (ITA. No.4246/Mum/2009) dated August 20,2010…

M/S. Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT- 8 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6901/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…r the period from 01/4/2004 to 31/03/2007 as well as for the period from 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2015 for all its R&D Units (Pg. 426 to 429 of Paper Book- 2). In such a case, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) would squarely apply in favor of the assessee. In this decision, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that the approval of R&D facility by DSIR is sufficient to claim deduction u/s 35(2AB). This decision has been followed by coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Advance Enzyme Technologies P Ltd V/s ACIT (2020; 116 Taxmann.com 498) wherein it has…

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Titan Laboratories Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3762/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133ASection 35

…tan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del) (hereafter 'Sandan Vikas') passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) (hereafter 'Claris Lifesciences'). 11. On the basis of both these judgements, the Petitioner claimed that since the R&D expenditure was incurred by it in the financial year which ended on 31st March, 2011, relevant to AY 2011-12, it is entitled to deduction In AY 2011-12 itself and thereafter in subsequent years for both its Gurgaon & Roht…

Titian Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3345/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133ASection 35

…tan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del) (hereafter 'Sandan Vikas') passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) (hereafter 'Claris Lifesciences'). 11. On the basis of both these judgements, the Petitioner claimed that since the R&D expenditure was incurred by it in the financial year which ended on 31st March, 2011, relevant to AY 2011-12, it is entitled to deduction In AY 2011-12 itself and thereafter in subsequent years for both its Gurgaon & Roht…

Titian Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3344/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133ASection 35

…tan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del) (hereafter 'Sandan Vikas') passed by the Division Bench of this Court, which followed the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) (hereafter 'Claris Lifesciences'). 11. On the basis of both these judgements, the Petitioner claimed that since the R&D expenditure was incurred by it in the financial year which ended on 31st March, 2011, relevant to AY 2011-12, it is entitled to deduction In AY 2011-12 itself and thereafter in subsequent years for both its Gurgaon & Roht…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2247/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…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 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 that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2246/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…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 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 that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2245/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…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 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 that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2244/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…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 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 that…