CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.

335 ITR 117High Court2011#950 most cited

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

Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable for R&D expenditure incurred even if the approval from the DSIR is granted in a subsequent assessment year, provided the application for approval was made in time. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if the approval is based on verification of details submitted.

112

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. · Section 35(2AB) · weighted deduction · R&D expenditure · DSIR approval · scientific research expenditure · deduction allowed

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.

Asst Comm of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 306/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on R&D has to be allowed as a weighted ded…

Asst Comm of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 305/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on R&D has to be allowed as a weighted ded…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 293/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on R&D has to be allowed as a weighted ded…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 292/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on R&D has to be allowed as a weighted ded…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 291/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on R&D has to be allowed as a weighted ded…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 290/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on R&D has to be allowed as a weighted ded…

M/S. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax-10(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 289/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Section 14ASection 33Section 35Section 80I

…/s 37(1). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science Ltd reported in 326 ITR 251 and Delhi High Court in the case of Sadan Vikas India Ltd reported in 335 ITR 117 have held that 35 (2AB) nowhere provides that expenditure will be allowed from the date of approval. Rather it nowhere suggests that the expenses would be allowable as a deduction only from the date of approval or only from a cut-off date. Once the facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on R&D has to be allowed as a weighted ded…

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1860/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri PVSS Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…/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 decision need not be followed. It was further contended that…

Godavari Biorefineries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5824/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. A C I T - 2(1)(2) 3Rd Floor, Somaiya Bhavan Room No. 561, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 45/47 M.G. Road, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400001 Pan – Aabcg2543C Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle Haria Respondent By: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Doshi & Ms. Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Ram K. Kedia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

…3,000/-. 2) The Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,95,73,000/- and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High court in Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. 335 ITR 117 and Gujarat High Court in Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251. 2 M/s. Godavari Biorefineries Ltd. 3) The Learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case by confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of Rs. 1,95,73,000/- and not following rule of consistency and also ignoring the decision of Hon'ble S…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 485/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.G.Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35

…/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 decision need not be followed. It was further contended that…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…e relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj.). Further reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del). He contended that in the case in hand, there is no dispute that R&D facilities have been approved. The only dispute was in respect of the requisite certificate was not signed by the Secretary, DSIR but it was signed by the Scientist “G”, DSIR i.e. head of R&D. He contended that the aforesaid reasoning for disallowing R&D expenses is not le…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…e relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj.). Further reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del). He contended that in the case in hand, there is no dispute that R&D facilities have been approved. The only dispute was in respect of the requisite certificate was not signed by the Secretary, DSIR but it was signed by the Scientist “G”, DSIR i.e. head of R&D. He contended that the aforesaid reasoning for disallowing R&D expenses is not le…

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1920/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 115JSection 131Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…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 32 M/s. Lupin Limited 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…

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

ITA 655/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R

…sue under consideration is also covered in the favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Meco Instruments (P) Ltd. (7 taxmann.com 24), CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) and CIT Vs. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. (335 ITR 117). The Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Nath Bio Genes (India) Ltd. VS. ACIT in ITA No.367/PN/2012 dated 27.01.2014 held that the AO had merely disallowed the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the ground that the recognition obtained by the assessee was not in prescribed Form No.3CM as specified in Rule 6(18) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Hon'ble ITAT…

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

ITA 7792/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R

…sue under consideration is also covered in the favour of assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Meco Instruments (P) Ltd. (7 taxmann.com 24), CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) and CIT Vs. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd. (335 ITR 117). The Hon'ble Pune ITAT in the case of Nath Bio Genes (India) Ltd. VS. ACIT in ITA No.367/PN/2012 dated 27.01.2014 held that the AO had merely disallowed the deduction U/s 35(2AB) on the ground that the recognition obtained by the assessee was not in prescribed Form No.3CM as specified in Rule 6(18) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Hon'ble ITAT…

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt./Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessmetnt Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1224/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 69CSection 92C(1)

…espect of the entireexpenditure incurred under s. 35(2AB) of the Act by the assessee." I.T.A. No. 1224/Mum/2021 23 Assessment Year: 2016-17 44. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. [2012] 22taxmann.com 19/207 Taxman 216/[2011] 335 ITR 117 (Del) on similar issue of weighteddeduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act held that the condition precedent wasthecertificate from DSIR, but the date of certificate was not important, where theobjectivewas to encourage research and development by the business enterprises inIndia. Inthefacts before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the assessee…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 8739/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

…facility are eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, whether incurred prior to or post the date of such approval by DSIR mentioned in Form 3CM i. CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) ii. CIT vs Sandan Vikas India Ltd. 335 ITR 117 (Del.) iii. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. 397 ITR 728 (Del.) b) Deduction under section 35(2AB) cannot be denied in respect of recognized in-house R & D centre even though approval in Form 3CM for the relevant years was under consideration or awaited. iv. CIT vs TVS Electronics Ltd. 419 ITR 187 (Madras) v. Minilec India (P…

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 133/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

…facility are eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, whether incurred prior to or post the date of such approval by DSIR mentioned in Form 3CM i. CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) ii. CIT vs Sandan Vikas India Ltd. 335 ITR 117 (Del.) iii. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. 397 ITR 728 (Del.) b) Deduction under section 35(2AB) cannot be denied in respect of recognized in-house R & D centre even though approval in Form 3CM for the relevant years was under consideration or awaited. iv. CIT vs TVS Electronics Ltd. 419 ITR 187 (Madras) v. Minilec India (P…

Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1328/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022

…eported in Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai-Trib), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del), Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at 250 Taxman 270 and Pune Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune-Trib). 51. The Ld. DR argued that the context of the cases in Claris Lifescienc…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1285/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / "नधा"रण अपीलाथ" / "" यथ" /

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar &For Respondent: 04/07/2022

…eported in Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 229 (Mumbai-Trib), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del), Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported at 250 Taxman 270 and Pune Tribunal in Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune-Trib). 51. The Ld. DR argued that the context of the cases in Claris Lifescienc…