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 367,368 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.

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

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

ITA 2049/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

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…

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

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

ITA 2048/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…

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2047/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…

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2046/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…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 213/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v Union of India 84 tasxmann.com 45 pronounce on 04.08.2017 wherein the Hon’ble High Court relying on the ratio of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the cat of CIT Es Claris Lifescienes Ltd. 326 ITR 251, held a under: “The settled position in law is that, for availing the benefit under section 35 (2AB) what it relevant is not the date of recognition or the cut-off date mentioned in the certificates of the DSIR or even the date of approval but the existence of the recognition. If a R&D Centre is not recognized it is not entitled to deduction but…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 954/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v Union of India 84 tasxmann.com 45 pronounce on 04.08.2017 wherein the Hon’ble High Court relying on the ratio of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the cat of CIT Es Claris Lifescienes Ltd. 326 ITR 251, held a under: “The settled position in law is that, for availing the benefit under section 35 (2AB) what it relevant is not the date of recognition or the cut-off date mentioned in the certificates of the DSIR or even the date of approval but the existence of the recognition. If a R&D Centre is not recognized it is not entitled to deduction but…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…015, which was supported with the following decisions, wherein it was held that weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) is available to the centre approved by DSIR dehors the date of recognition accorded in the approval: • CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251(Guj) - Special Leave Petition (‘SLP’) filed by the Revenue against the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court was dismissed by the Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT Supreme Court vide order 4.8.2009, bearing CC No.10181/2009 • CIT vs Sandan Vikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order 09.01.2012, bearing CC…

M/S Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Raichur vs. Addl.C.I.T., Raichur

In the result, the appeal on Gr

ITA 1352/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Vs. The Additional Commissioner 10/80, 1St Floor, Rajendra Gung, Of Income Tax, Raichur – 584 102 Raichur. Pan: Aadcs 8788 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. S. Annamalai, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.9.2015 Of Cit(A) Kalaburagi, Relating To Ay 2011-12. 2. One Of The Issues That Arose For Consideration In The Appeal By The Assessee For Ay 2011-12 Was With Regard To The Allowability Of The Assessee For Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act). Similar Issue Arose For Consideration In The Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Also In Ita No.1351/Bang/2015. The Appeals For Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12 Were Heard Together & A Common Order Was Passed By The Tribunal. On The Issue Of Allowing Deduction U/S.35(2Ab) Of The Act, The Tribunal Came To The Following Conclusion In Its Order Dated 6.2.2020:-

For Appellant: Shri. S. Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 35

…ority and since the approval of the prescribed authority is only w.e.f. 1.4.2011, the deduction cannot be allowed for AY 2010-11. The assessee, however, had placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [326 ITR 251 (Guj)] wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the provisions of section 35(2AB) nowhere suggests or implies that the R&D facility is to be approved from a particular date or that the date of approval only will be the cut-off date for allowability of weighted deduction. The CIT(Appeals) on this aspect held as follows:- “ The contents of the Asse…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore vs. M/S. Mahindra Electric Vehicles Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Mathivanan, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Sanghvi, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Range-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, we reverse the order of Assessing Officer in curtailing the deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act by ₹ 6,75,000/-. Thus, grounds of appeal No.10.1, 10.2 ...

ITA 4957/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4957 & 6434/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S Reliance Life Acit-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Ambani Estate, Ttc Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Are Of Midc, Rabale Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2130/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Reliance Life Jt.Cit (Osd)-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Ambani Estate, Ttc Bhavan, Vs. Are Of Midc, Mumbai-20 Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 14ASection 43Section 92F

…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 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 assess…

Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Life Sciences P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, we reverse the order of Assessing Officer in curtailing the deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act by ₹ 6,75,000/-. Thus, grounds of appeal No.10.1, 10.2 ...

ITA 2130/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4957 & 6434/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S Reliance Life Acit-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Ambani Estate, Ttc Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Are Of Midc, Rabale Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2130/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Reliance Life Jt.Cit (Osd)-8(1)(1), R. No. 624, 6Th Floor, Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ R-282, Dhirubhai M. K. Road, Aayakar Ambani Estate, Ttc Bhavan, Vs. Are Of Midc, Mumbai-20 Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr7594L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 14ASection 43Section 92F

…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 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 assess…

The ITO, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2593/Ahd/2014With Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. ITO, Ward-1(4) Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN : AACCD 4057 H "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 ITO, Ward-1(4) Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad…

Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2593/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2593/Ahd/2014With Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. ITO, Ward-1(4) Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN : AACCD 4057 H "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 ITO, Ward-1(4) Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad…

M/S. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…4 of 17 the assessee in terms of the s. 35(2AB) of the Act and in coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal M/s. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 16 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…

Boscj Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…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…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1556/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.And Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.1556/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.R
Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

…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…

East West Seeds India Private Limited, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 702/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ted 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 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…

East West Seeds India Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3054/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ted 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 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…

East West Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 469/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ted 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 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…

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7284/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7284/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd Acit-7(3)(1) T-8B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix House, A-Wing Room No.142 G बनाम/ Phoenix Mill Compound Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 462 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-2914-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Urvi A. Mehta-Ld.Ar ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit -Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 26/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest Certain Additions / Adjustment Made In Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2018 Passed By Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-7(3)(1), Mumbai [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13), Pursuant To The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Urvi A. Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit -Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 92C(1)

…ment Year-2014-15 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…