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.

Asst.C.I.T., Raichur vs. M/S Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Raichur

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1374/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…counsel for the assessee apart from relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science (supra) further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandan Vikas (India) Pvt. Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Del) laying down identical proposition and also on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Banco Products (I) Ltd., 405 ITR 318 (Guj). 10. We have perused the aforesaid decisions and we find that in the case of Claris Lifesciences (supra), weighted deduction was claimed by the assessee in AY 2001-02 and the approval was re…

M/S Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Raichur vs. Addl.C.I.T., Raichur

In the result, the revenue’s appeal for AY 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1351/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR) (ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)

…counsel for the assessee apart from relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Life Science (supra) further placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandan Vikas (India) Pvt. Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Del) laying down identical proposition and also on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Banco Products (I) Ltd., 405 ITR 318 (Guj). 10. We have perused the aforesaid decisions and we find that in the case of Claris Lifesciences (supra), weighted deduction was claimed by the assessee in AY 2001-02 and the approval was re…

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

ITA 1229/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 115JSection 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…

M/S. Victor Gaskets India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 728/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Victor Gaskets India Pvt. Ltd. 152/223, Mahalunge, Chakan Telegaon Road, Tal. Khed, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aabcv2847C .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.D. OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj B. Patil
Section 143(3)Section 35

…een granted regarding in-house research and development facilities to the assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that once certificate by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DS & IR), Govt. of India is issued that would be sufficient to hold that the assessee fulfil conditions laid down in Section 35(2AB) of the Act. 6. The Ld. DR could not place on record any decision contrary to the view taken by the Hon‟ble…

M/S Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

ITA 26/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K.P Kumar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 35

…e Act has to be based on From No.3CL and hence the said form has obtained significance. a) Qumine India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA NO.309/Bun/2014 dt. b) M/s Shree Biotech Laboratories India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 385/Hyd/2014 dt. 24.9.2014 c) CIT Vs. SadanVikhas India Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Del) d) CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., 326 ITR 251 5. For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the order passed in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd., (Supra) 13. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO/CIT(A). The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated su…

M/S Park Control and Communications Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 17/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 35Section 35(2)

…e Act has to be based on From No.3CL and hence the said form has obtained significance. a) Qumine India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA NO.309/Bun/2014 dt. b) M/s Shree Biotech Laboratories India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 385/Hyd/2014 dt. 24.9.2014 c) CIT Vs. SadanVikhas India Ltd., 335 ITR 117 (Del) d) CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd., 326 ITR 251 6. For the sake of convenience we extract below the operative portion of the order passed in the case of Mahindra Electric Mobility Ltd., (Supra). 13. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO/CIT(A). The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated s…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 805/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
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…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1062/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 assessment year ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 17 and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. The CIT(A)…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1061/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 assessment year ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 17 and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. The CIT(A)…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1060/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 assessment year ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 17 and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. The CIT(A)…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1059/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 assessment year ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 17 and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. The CIT(A)…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1058/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 assessment year ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 17 and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. The CIT(A)…

Kumar Organic Products Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1057/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

…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 assessment year ITA Nos.1057 to 1062/Bang/2019 Page 13 of 17 and, therefore, the weighted deduction cannot be allowed. The CIT(A)…

Kabra Extrusiontechnik Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4736/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood & Assessment Year-2013-14

Section 11Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 253Section 35

…e is in appeal before us. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following Hon’ble High Court decisions 1. Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs DCIT 405 ITR 318 (Guj.) II. CIT vs Sadan Vikas Ltd. 335 ITR 117 (Del.) 9. He submitted that these decisions duly expounded that DSIR has only to give the approval to the assessee's proposal and they were not mandated to provide the date for deduction. He claimed that in the present case the assessee has duly submitted the application on 28/11/2012. He submitted that in the application assessee duly mentio…

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)

…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…

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)

…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…

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

…such Legislation. The learned Counsel for assessee argued for grant of weighted deduction on this issue of dates and cut-off dates and approvals. The learned Counsel for assessee relied 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 me…

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

…has occurred”. Ld. AR also took us through the detailed paper book running from pages 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. Wh…

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)

…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…

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

…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…