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.

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 581/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…ial Vehicles Ltd. assessee company is extraneous and irrelevant for claiming weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) has allowed the deduction relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251. The CIT(A) has discussed the issue on Page no. 7-11 of his order. 4. In the present case, in-house R & D facility which was earlier owned by EML, prior to slump sale of business to the assessee company, was approved by DSIR. The EML vide application 03.09.2007 applied for renewal of the earlier approval given to EML. The EML divested the commer…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 580/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…ial Vehicles Ltd. assessee company is extraneous and irrelevant for claiming weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) has allowed the deduction relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251. The CIT(A) has discussed the issue on Page no. 7-11 of his order. 4. In the present case, in-house R & D facility which was earlier owned by EML, prior to slump sale of business to the assessee company, was approved by DSIR. The EML vide application 03.09.2007 applied for renewal of the earlier approval given to EML. The EML divested the commer…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S V E Commercial Vehicles Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5734/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…ial Vehicles Ltd. assessee company is extraneous and irrelevant for claiming weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 3. The CIT(A) has allowed the deduction relying on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251. The CIT(A) has discussed the issue on Page no. 7-11 of his order. 4. In the present case, in-house R & D facility which was earlier owned by EML, prior to slump sale of business to the assessee company, was approved by DSIR. The EML vide application 03.09.2007 applied for renewal of the earlier approval given to EML. The EML divested the commer…

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Advance Enzyme Technologies P.Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 3353/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ramlal Negisl.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…cribed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act and Rule 6 and 7A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents: 1. Indian Planetary Society Vs. CBDT & Ors. [2009] 318 ITR 102 (BOM). 2. CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj). 3. CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd., [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Mad) 4. CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del). 5. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Union of India (2017) taxmann.com 45 (Del). Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd.. 6. Banco Products (India) Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2018) 405 ITR 318 (Guj). 7. CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries L…

Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Thane

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

ITA 3026/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ramlal Negisl.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…cribed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act and Rule 6 and 7A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents: 1. Indian Planetary Society Vs. CBDT & Ors. [2009] 318 ITR 102 (BOM). 2. CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences ltd., [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj). 3. CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd., [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Mad) 4. CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del). 5. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Union of India (2017) taxmann.com 45 (Del). Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd.. 6. Banco Products (India) Ltd., Vs. DCIT (2018) 405 ITR 318 (Guj). 7. CIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries L…

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1373/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…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 Ass…

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…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 Ass…

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

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1351/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…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 Ass…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

ITA 1229/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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…

M/S Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P Kumar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 35

…form has obtained significance. a) Qumine India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA NO.309/Bun/2014 dt. b) M/s Shree Biotech Laboratories India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 385/Hyd/2014 dt. 24.9.2014 c) CIT Vs. SadanVikhas India Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Del) d) CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., 326 ITR 251 5. For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the order passed in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd., (Supra) 13. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO/CIT(A). The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated submissions as were made before the revenue authorities an…

M/S Park Control and Communications Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 17/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 35Section 35(2)

…form has obtained significance. a) Qumine India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA NO.309/Bun/2014 dt. b) M/s Shree Biotech Laboratories India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 385/Hyd/2014 dt. 24.9.2014 c) CIT Vs. SadanVikhas India Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Del) d) CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., 326 ITR 251 6. For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the order passed in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd., (Supra). 13. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO/CIT(A). The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated submissions as were made before the revenue authorities a…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 805/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
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 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…

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu) - 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5651/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Glenmark House, Income Tax – Ltu-2, 29Th Floor, Centre-I Hdo Corporate Builsing Wing A,B,D. Sawant Marg World Trade Centre Chakala, Opp. Western Express Cuffe Parade, Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 005 400 099 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg2207L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Income Tax – Ltu-2, Glenmark House, 29Th Floor, Centre-I Hdo Corporate Builsing World Trade Centre Wing A,B,D. Sawant Marg Cuffe Parade, Chakala, Opp. Western Express Mumbai – 400 005 Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg2207L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35

…f Pune Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd vs DCIT reported in (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune Trib) dated 15.5.2018 for Asst Year 2009-10 . 3.2. We also find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 (Guj) had also observed as under:- “8. We are in full agreement with the reasoning given by the Tribunal and we are of the view that there is no scope for any other interpretation and since the approval is granted during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim weight…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1062/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1061/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1060/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1059/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1058/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1057/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, Central Circle-2, Baroda

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1417/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Sparc, Tandalja, Tax, Central Circle – 2, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vadodara – 390 020. Annex, Race Course Circle Baroda – 390 007. [Pan No. Aadcs 3124 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Ltd., SPARC, Tandalja, Tax, Central Circle – 2, 2nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vadodara – 390 020. Annex, Race Course Circle Baroda – 390 007. [PAN No. AADCS 3124 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Soparkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri O. P. Sharma, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 01/05/2019 Date of Pronouncement 17/05/2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the asse…