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.

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-1, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…hat the impugned weighted deduction is not to be restricted to the extent of the amount of the necessary expenditure incurred stated in such Form 3CL. We further find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Gujarat) upholds this tribunal's decision in the very assessee's case observing that expenses incurred before Form 3CM approval cannot be denied for the purpose of Section 35(2AB) weighted deduction. We follow the very reasoning to opine that facts of the instant case rather go a step further wherein the appellant has only claimed those expenses…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 922/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…hat the impugned weighted deduction is not to be restricted to the extent of the amount of the necessary expenditure incurred stated in such Form 3CL. We further find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Gujarat) upholds this tribunal's decision in the very assessee's case observing that expenses incurred before Form 3CM approval cannot be denied for the purpose of Section 35(2AB) weighted deduction. We follow the very reasoning to opine that facts of the instant case rather go a step further wherein the appellant has only claimed those expenses…

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1237/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…hat the impugned weighted deduction is not to be restricted to the extent of the amount of the necessary expenditure incurred stated in such Form 3CL. We further find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Gujarat) upholds this tribunal's decision in the very assessee's case observing that expenses incurred before Form 3CM approval cannot be denied for the purpose of Section 35(2AB) weighted deduction. We follow the very reasoning to opine that facts of the instant case rather go a step further wherein the appellant has only claimed those expenses…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1234/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi and Shri Parin Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR
Section 92B

…hat the impugned weighted deduction is not to be restricted to the extent of the amount of the necessary expenditure incurred stated in such Form 3CL. We further find that hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. CLARIS LIFESCIENCES Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Gujarat) upholds this tribunal's decision in the very assessee's case observing that expenses incurred before Form 3CM approval cannot be denied for the purpose of Section 35(2AB) weighted deduction. We follow the very reasoning to opine that facts of the instant case rather go a step further wherein the appellant has only claimed those expenses…

Star Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1435/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1435/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)Section 35

…of no relevance where once the certificate was issued by DSIR, then that would be sufficient to hold that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions laid down in the aforesaid provisions. 18. The Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 513 (Mad) had also held that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction for whole year and not merely from the date of notification. It was held by the Hon‟ble High Court that Once the prescribed authority approves the existence of a research and development facility and the expenditure incurred on such scientific research, the assessee would be…

Copper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Satara vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Satara

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

ITA 652/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GajrathiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gudekar
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Satara

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

ITA 621/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GajrathiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gudekar
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…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…

Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 112/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)Section 35

…ied on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del) “2….. the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2009) 221 CTR (Guj) 301 : (2008) 16 DTR (Guj) 57 : (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj). We have gone through the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court and find that Gujarat High Court detailed in no-uncertain terms 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 there…

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 7085/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…s opined through this decision that, if an R&D centre is not recognised, it is not entitled to deduction under section 35 (2 AB) of the Act. He placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd., reported in 326 ITR 251, which has been referred to and relied upon by Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra). 14.3. Considering legality of issue involved that has been clarified by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we deem it fit and proper to admit additional ground so raised by assessee. 14.4. While arguing upon issue in addition…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1787/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…s opined through this decision that, if an R&D centre is not recognised, it is not entitled to deduction under section 35 (2 AB) of the Act. He placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd., reported in 326 ITR 251, which has been referred to and relied upon by Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra). 14.3. Considering legality of issue involved that has been clarified by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we deem it fit and proper to admit additional ground so raised by assessee. 14.4. While arguing upon issue in addition…

M/S. Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA 1972/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I Bara, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…s opined through this decision that, if an R&D centre is not recognised, it is not entitled to deduction under section 35 (2 AB) of the Act. He placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd., reported in 326 ITR 251, which has been referred to and relied upon by Hon’ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra). 14.3. Considering legality of issue involved that has been clarified by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we deem it fit and proper to admit additional ground so raised by assessee. 14.4. While arguing upon issue in addition…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Deversons Industries Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 431/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 431/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13) The Dcit M/S.Deversons Industries बनाम/ Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad 441, Gidc Industrial Estate, Odhav Ahmedbad – 382 415 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd 9671 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri B.T. Thakkar, Ar

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri B.T. Thakkar, AR
Section 14ASection 32Section 35

…h of the Gujarat High Court. No substantial question of law, therefore, arises. The appeal is dismissed.” 9.1 Respectfully following the order of the Delhi High, in which judgment of Jurisdictional High court in the matter of CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., 326 ITR 251 has also been discussed, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the department.” 9. Since the identical issue is involved in this year also, therefore, taking a consistent view and respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and ground raised by the Revenue is at this mo…

The ACIT, 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Symbiotic Pharmalab Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 373/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 5(1), M/S. Symbiotic Indore बनाम/ Pharmalab Ltd. 385, Vs. Pigdamber, Rau, Indore (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcs9311 Revenue By Shri Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Kapil Shah, Cas Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal Of Revenue Pertaining To A.Y. 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, Indore, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 31.12.2015 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On M/S. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. Itano.373/Ind/2016 05.12.2011 By Acit, 5(1) Indore. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Restricting The Addition Of Rs. 2,60,50,027/- To Rs.3,74,195/- & Addition Made By The Ao 'After Disallowing U/S 35(2Ab) Deleted To The Extent Of Rs. 2,56,75,832/- On Account Of R&D Expenditure Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That Disr Has Not Issue Report In Form 3Cl To Dgit Exemption & Even When No Satisfactory Clarification Was Given By The Assessee To The Ao.” “2.Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 9,97,920/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Foreign Exchange Loss Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Had Pointed Out That The Loss Claimed By The Assessee In The Year Of Fluctuation In The Rate Of Exchange Or The Same Is Allowable Only In The Year' Of Repayment Of Such Loans.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…es 1 to 313 and also placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. DCIT vs. Famy Care Ltd. in ITANo.1798/Mum/2013, I.T.A.T., Mumbai 2. CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 3. CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments relied by the Ld. counsel for the assessee. 5 M/s. Symboitic Pharmalab Ltd. ITANo.373/Ind/2016 Ground No.1 “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition of R…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Halder
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…35(2AB) was introduced with a view to encourage the R&D in industrial sector and nowhere it is mentioned R&D facility is to be approved from a particular date. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 607/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…35(2AB) was introduced with a view to encourage the R&D in industrial sector and nowhere it is mentioned R&D facility is to be approved from a particular date. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for…

Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 550/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…35(2AB) was introduced with a view to encourage the R&D in industrial sector and nowhere it is mentioned R&D facility is to be approved from a particular date. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for…

Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 549/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

…35(2AB) was introduced with a view to encourage the R&D in industrial sector and nowhere it is mentioned R&D facility is to be approved from a particular date. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. UOI 84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi HC) 3. Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 95 taxmann.com 132 (Gujarat). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that it carried out the scientific research in the facility approved by DSIR. Assessee incurred various expenditure which includes expenses on clinical trials for…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2494/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2493/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 67, Chamiers Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 028. Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai 600 034. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2494/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Turbo Energy Private Lim…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2493/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2493/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 Turbo Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 67, Chamiers Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 028. Large Tax Payer Unit -1, Chennai 600 034. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2494/CHNY/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2010-2011 The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Turbo Energy Private Lim…