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 366,444 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, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1605/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri C.P. RamaswamiFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 32Section 35

…case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 807/Ahd/2010 and others, dated 14.08.2015); (ii) CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd (214 Taxman 0672); (iii) SRI Biotech Laboratories India Ltd vs. ACIT (36 ITR (Trib) 88); (iv) CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd (326 ITR 251) (Guj) and (v) CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd (335 ITR 117) (Guj) 8. Referring to the decision of Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra) it was submitted that the later decision of the ITAT has analysed the Explanation to section 32(2AB) which was approved by the Gujarat High Court. Since the decision has not considered the Explanation given, the…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited., Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1604/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri C.P. RamaswamiFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 32Section 35

…case of Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. DCIT (ITA Nos. 807/Ahd/2010 and others, dated 14.08.2015); (ii) CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd (214 Taxman 0672); (iii) SRI Biotech Laboratories India Ltd vs. ACIT (36 ITR (Trib) 88); (iv) CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd (326 ITR 251) (Guj) and (v) CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd (335 ITR 117) (Guj) 8. Referring to the decision of Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd (supra) it was submitted that the later decision of the ITAT has analysed the Explanation to section 32(2AB) which was approved by the Gujarat High Court. Since the decision has not considered the Explanation given, the…

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3493/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…AB) of the I T Act for applying any cut off to allow expenses only after the date Form No. sCM is issued. This view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in SandanVikas (India) Ltd. 335 ITR 117 and Gujarat High Court in Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251. 7.7 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in SandanVikas (India) Ltd. 335 ITR 117 has observed that: "Para 2 The provision further states that i?i order to claim this weighted deduction, it is to be certified by the Competent Authority that the assessee had undertaken research and development activity. The competent authority in this behalf is Department…

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst Cir 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8614/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Strides Shasun Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Strides Income Tax Circle 10(3), Arcolab Limited) 201, Mumbai Vs. Devavrata, Sector 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadcs8104P

For Appellant: Percy J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Jayant Kumar &
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 1O

…administrative reasons and Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2002-03 in ITA No. 1727/Mum/2006 vide order dated 16.12.2015 allowed the claim of the assessee after following the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj), wherein it is held as under: “3.4. We have gone through the submissions made by both the sides as well as facts of the case and the position of law emerging out from the decisions relied upon by the parties before us. The brief facts are that deduction u/s 35(2AB) was claimed by the assessee in respect of research and development expenses…

Agappe Diagnostics Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir. - 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5284/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5284/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Agappe Diagnostics Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle-9(1)(1), बनाम/ 401-402, Jaisingh Business Centre, Mumbai Sahara Road, Mumbai-400 099 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacca 3940 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Satyanarayanan ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop

For Appellant: Shri V. SatyanarayananFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 35

…recognized R & D facility. In support of his contention, the ld. Authorized Representative relied upon the following decisions: 1. Ferment Biotech Ltd. (45 Taxmann.com 329)(Mum); 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (397 ITR 251)(Mum); 3. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251)(Del); 4. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. 20 Taxmann 216 (Del); 5. MECO Instruments Pvt. Ltd. (86 Taxmann.com 50); and 6. Vivimed Labs Ltd. (66 Taxmann.com 94) 8. The ld. Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted that the fact on record clearly…

Cummins India Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 309/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…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 assesse…

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu, Chandigarh

ITA 575/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2012-13
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Limited, Chandigarh

ITA 1212/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2011-12
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 1086/CHANDI/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2010-11
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 25/CHANDI/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2007-08
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Swaraj Mazda Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 478/CHANDI/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2006-07
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 399/CHANDI/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2006-07
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

M/S Sml Isuzu Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1234/CHANDI/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2007-08
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

M/S Swaraj Mazda Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

ITA 79/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2005-06
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

Addl. CIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Swaraj Mazda Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 112/CHANDI/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2018AY 2005-06
Section 35

…te of the notification onwards, whereas the assessee was eligible to claim of benefit for the whole of the assessment year. The Ld. Counsel in this respect has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Wheels India Ltd.’ 336 ITR 513. The Ld. counsel has further contended that merely because the automobile business was not mentioned in the notification at the time of grant of renewal certificate, that itself could not stand in the way for grant of benefit to the assessee as the benefit of the notification would be available to the assessee throughout the assessment year u…

Minilec India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 690/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.690/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, At & Post Pirangut, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 412111 …. Pan:Aabcm2682E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11(2), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 43BSection 69C

…the prescribed authority. The CIT(A) also observed that the Tribunal had held that once the facility was approved, the entire expenditure incurred had to be allowed and the Hon‟ble High Court had upheld the said view in CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj). However, since in the present case the approval was not granted by the DSIR, the CIT(A) held the assessee not eligible to claim the said deduction. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to the chart, under which overall position of in-house R & D expen…

Ansh Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2492/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “SMC” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" डी डी राव राव, लेखा राव लेखा लेखा BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.2492/PUN/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" Ansh Systems Pvt. Ltd., Nyati Tech Park, Building A, 4th Floor, Vadgaon Sheri,…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 750/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 23

…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 income of the assessee. Accordingly in principle the issue was decided in favour of the assessee that the income earned by the asses…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunbeam Auto (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6141/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…cision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., 335 ITR 117 wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court after following the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., 326 ITR 251, has held that the total amount incurred during ITA No. 6141/Del./2013 4 the year should be considered for weighted deduction irrespective of the date mentioned by DSIR for that year. Therefore, simply because the assessee did not challenge the addition in appeal, would not empower the AO to impose penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars…

Turbo Energy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 317/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 80I

…amount disclosed in the annual report. The restriction by DSIR overlooking the reconciliation is unjust and hence the claim as made by the appellant should have been allowed. The Ld.A.R relied on the following decisions: i. CIT vs Claris Life Sciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251(Guj) ii. CIT vs.Wheels India Ltd 336 ITR 513 (Mad) iii. Electronics Corporation of India Ltd.vs ACIT(ITA No.1106/Hyd/2011 14.1 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The act does not place any restrictions to incur the expenditure. The expenditure incurred for the purpose of scientific research required to b…