How many judgments cite CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.?

112 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. (335 ITR 117), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35(2AB), Section 143(3), Section 1963), Section 37(1), Section 10A, Section 115O.

CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.

335 ITR 117High Court2011#958 most cited

What is CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. authority for?

Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for in-house scientific research and development expenditure is allowable for the entire period covered by the approval of the prescribed authority, irrespective of the date when the approval was formally granted.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sadan Vikas India Ltd. · 335 ITR 117 · Section 35(2AB) · weighted deduction · scientific research expenditure · R&D expenditure · allowability of expenditure · date of approval · prescribed authority · DSIR approval · in-house research

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 143(3)Section 1963)Section 37(1)Section 10A Section 115O Section 135 (Companies Act Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expenditure freebies to doctors section 35(1)weighted deduction r&d expenditure section 35(1)(iv)section 35(2ab)section 35 csr expenditure prohibited by law section 80ib section 33

Judgments citing CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.

FLAMINGO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,SION TROMBAY ROAD CHEMBUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI , AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nShri Ravindra Poojary,ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 35

…denied merely on the ground that prescribed\nauthority has not submitted report in Form 3CL.\n19. The question of allowing deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act was considered\nby the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sadan Vikas (India)\nLtd. (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del) where AO refused to accord the benefit of the\nweighted deduction to the assessee under s.35(2AB) on the ground that\nPage | 20\nITA No. 4952/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13\nFlamingo Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai\nrecognition and approval was given by the DSIR in February/September,\n2006, i.e., in the next assessment year and, therefore, the weight…

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 804/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

…n question, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the entire expenditure incurred under s. 35(2AB) of the Act by the assessee." 44. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del) on similar issue of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act held that the condition precedent was the certificate from DSIR, but the date of certificate was not important, where the objective was to encourage research and development by the business enterprises in India. In the facts before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the a…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…under section 35(2AB), which is admittedly in place in the facts of the present case:  Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT: 111 TTJ 902 (Ahd)  CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) – SLP dismissed by the HC  CIT v. SandanVikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the HC  Nagravision India (P) Ltd vs. Secretary, DSIR: 159 taxmann.com 558 (Del.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Guj.)  Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1057/2017)(Guj.)  DCIT vs. International Tractors Ltd.: ITA No. 5817/ 6071 of 2010 (Del);  ACIT vs Meco Instruments (P) Ltd.: ITA No. 4246/Mum/…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…entire expenditure incurred by the assessee on development of facility, if approved, has to be allowed for the purpose of weighted deduction. 44. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd [2012] 22 taxmann.com 19/207 Taxman 216/[2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del) on similar issue of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act held that the condition precedent was the certificate from DSIR, but the date of certificate was not important, where the objective was to encourage research and development by the business enterprises in India. In the facts before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the a…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/323/2025HC Delhi21 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 260A

…,1 22 − Covered by order dated 04.08.2017 passed by this Court in Respondent’s own case reported in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. Union of India: 397 ITR 728 (Del.) − Covered in favour by following orders: • CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del.) • CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) Not raised in appeal 12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. ITA 323/2025 13. We find that identical proposed questions of law have been framed in this appeal as well. 14. In view of the fact that we have already dismissed ITA No. 321/2025, this appea…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/321/2025HC Delhi21 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 260A

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

…w.e.f. 01.07.2016 and was effective from AY 2017-18 and AO has wrongly applied the same in the year under appeal. He placed reliance on the following judgements:-  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India: 397 ITR 728 (Del)  CIT v. Sandan Vikas India Ltd: 335 ITR 117 (Del.)  CIT v. Claris Life sciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Mad.)  Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. v. PCIT: 167 ITD 118 (Kol. Trib.)  ACIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.: [2017] 86 taxmann.com 162 (Mum. Trib.)  ACIT v. Meco Instruments (P.) Ltd. [2010] 7 taxmann.com 24 (Mum. Trib.)  DCIT v. Internationa…

RRB ENERGY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 15, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4104/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 253(5)Section 35

…th reference to this expenditure only. Reliance placed by the Ld. AR on judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 174 Taxman 113 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sandan Vikas Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117(Del) does not help as the said judgements are on different facts le. allowability of expenditure with reference to the date of approval accorded by the Prescribed Authority. In the case on hand Form No. 3CL has clearly quantified and certified the R&D expenditure eligible for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB). The AO is directed to allow weighted d…

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

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

ITA 1745/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…the view (vide Paragraph-13 of the order) that: “13. The aforesaid view expressed by the Mumbai Bench has been subsequently followed in many other decisions of the same Bench. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sandan Vikar (India) Ltd. (335 ITR 117) following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) approved the view of the Tribunal that once the R & D facility is approved, the entire expenditure incurred for R & D facility has to be allowed towards weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The ratio laid down by the ITA…

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. LUPIN LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4325/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 4325/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker, Sr.D/R

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

…2AB) of the Act by Rs. 6,75,000/-. Thus, grounds of appeal No.10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 are allowed." 14.8 The question of allowing deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del) where AO refused to accord the benefit of the weighted deduction to the assessee under s. 35(2AB) on the ground that recognition and approval was given by the DSIR in February/September, 2006, i.e., in the next assessment year and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. In this case, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.…

RENU ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacr8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Weighted Deduction Amounting To Rs.9,25,79,494/- U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Act. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Company Was Not Entitled To Claim Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Since Form No. 3Cla Was Filed By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Specified U/S 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37(1)

…3 taxmann 62 (Allahabad HC)  DCIT vs. Sankalp International ITA No. 504/JP/2017  Pr. CIT Vs. Surya Merchang Ltd- (2016) 72 taxmann.com 16 (Allahabad HC)  CIT Vs. Clans Lifesciences Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Gujarat)  CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd- (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Delhi)  Strides Shasun Limited Vs. ACIT- ITA No. 8614/Mum/2011  Cummins India Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)- ITA No. 309/Pun/2014  Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Tejas Networks Ltd vs. DCIT (2015) 233 taxmann 426  Johnson Controls Hitachi Air Conditioning India Ltd Vs DCIT (2020) TIOL 653 ITAT Ahm 8.8 In plethora of cases as cited…

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

…and necessary approval granted in proscribed from; merely because the prescribed authority failed to send intimation in Form 3CL, would not be reason enough to deprive the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB)" 60.6 In ‘CIT vs Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd’, 335 ITR 117 of 2011, the Hon'ble Delhi High held that the Tribunal had considered R.6(5) and Form No. 3CM and concluded that a plain and harmonious reading of the Rule and the Form clearly suggested ITA 350/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 90 that once the facility was approved, the entire expenditure on development of research and development facility had to be a…

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

…is purpose. To buttress such proposition, the ld. counsel relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj.); CIT vs. Sandan 37 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022 Vikas (India) Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Del.) and Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Force Motors Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 71 (Pune-Trib.); Minilec India (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT, (2018) 93 taxmann.com 213 (Pune-Trib.); Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, (2021) 24 taxmann.com 73 (Bangalore-Trib.). 58.1 Riding on such decisions, the ld. counsel reiterat…

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

ASSTT. CIT -CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LUPIN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

LUPIN LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

…AB) of the Act by Rs. 6,75,000/-. Thus, grounds of appeal No.10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 are allowed." 14.8 The question of allowing deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del) where AO refused to accord the benefit of the weighted deduction to the assessee under s. 35(2AB) on the ground that recognition and approval was given by the DSIR in February/September, 2006, i.e., in the next assessment year and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. In this case, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. T…

SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.84/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)Section 43B

…nhouse R&D facility of the Appellant approved by the DSIR. 5.2 Appellant relies on the following among other decisions: Eicher Motors Ltd v CIT - 398 ITR 51 Del CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj) CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del) Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT 405 ITR 318 Guj. CIT v BIOCON Ltd - 234 TAXMAN 0604 (Kar). 5.3 Without prejudice no disallowance u/s 35(2AB) can be made without reference to the Appropriate Authority u/s 35(3). 6.1 The CIT(A) /NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,97,679/- in computing book profit u/s 115JB, being the elect…

SANDHAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE LTU-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8160/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 35

…e year irrespective of the fact that the approval was granted only from the period commencing from 20.11.2012 onwards. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 (Del) in support of its 3 contentions before the ld AO. The ld. AO in the original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.3.2016 had duly appreciated this contention and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and granted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act as claimed in the return. This was sought to be disturbed in the imp…

Showing 1–20 of 112 · Page 1 of 6