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 10ASection 115OSection 135 (Companies ActSection 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expenditurefreebies to doctorssection 35(1)weighted deductionr&d expendituresection 35(1)(iv)section 35(2ab)section 35csr expenditureprohibited by lawsection 80ibsection 33

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

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 1269/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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
Section 10B

…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…

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1268/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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
Section 10B

…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 1232/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

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
Section 10B

…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 Laboratoreis Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1231/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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
Section 10B

…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…

Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1887/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35

….4 Learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant is eligible for deduction U/s 35 (2AB) for the whole period based on the following decisions also: • CIT Vs Claris Life Sciences Limited [2010] 326 ITR 251 (Guj). • Sandan Vikas (India) Limited – 335 ITR 117 – (Del) HC. • Aarti industries Limited vs ADIT (ITA/370/Mum/2009) The Appellant carves leave to add, alter or modify the grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of appeal. As evident, the sole grievance of the assessee is quantum of deduction u/s 35(2AB). 2. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Omni Active H…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 354/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 Vs. 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…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 353/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 Vs. 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…

Bharat Forge Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1593/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 Vs. 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…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. 500082 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 189/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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 vs. 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 allowed. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to weighted deductions of…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITA 188/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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 vs. 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 allowed. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to weighted deductions of…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(3), Hyderabad

ITA 187/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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 vs. 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 allowed. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to weighted deductions of…

Vivimed Labs Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 186/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai – CIT DR
Section 143(3)

…be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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 vs. 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 allowed. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to weighted deductions of…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Rrb Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the RevenueDepartment stands dismissed

ITA 7323/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Addl. Cit, Vs. Rrb Energy Ltd, Special Range-7, Ga, 1/B-1, Extension, New Delhi Mohan Coop. Ind Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacv0109N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriVipulKashyap, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri. S. Krishanan, Ld. Adv
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35Section 40

…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 Life Sciences Ltd. 1 74 Taxman 113 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT vs. SandanVikas Ltd. (2011} 335 ITR 117 (Del) does not help as the said judgements are on different facts. i.e. 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 weighte…

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Titan Laboratories Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3762/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133ASection 35

…erence in this respect can be made to the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 113 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of CIT New Delhi Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. 335 ITR 117. We are informed that the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court and the SLP came to be dismissed by an order dated 09th January, 2012. This question is therefore not entertained.” 18. Similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Delhi Hig…

Titian Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3345/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133ASection 35

…erence in this respect can be made to the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 113 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of CIT New Delhi Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. 335 ITR 117. We are informed that the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court and the SLP came to be dismissed by an order dated 09th January, 2012. This question is therefore not entertained.” 18. Similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Delhi Hig…

Titian Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3344/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133ASection 35

…erence in this respect can be made to the decision of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2008) 174 Taxman 113 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of CIT New Delhi Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. 335 ITR 117. We are informed that the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. Titan Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court and the SLP came to be dismissed by an order dated 09th January, 2012. This question is therefore not entertained.” 18. Similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Delhi Hig…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2247/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…t be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal he…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2246/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…t be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal he…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2245/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…t be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal he…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2244/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…t be denied merely on the ground that prescribed authority has not submitted report in Form 3CL. 19. 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. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The Tribunal he…