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.

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

…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…

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

…1 ITA 3473/Mum/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI Before Shri Mahavir Singh(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.3493/Mum/2017 (Assessment year: 2012-13) DCIT-2(1(2), Mumbai vs M/s Godavari Biorefineries Ltd Somaiya Bhavan, 45-47, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai-1 PAN : AABCG2543C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Abhijit Patankar Respondent by Smt. Aaarati Vissanji Date of hearing 15-05-2018 Date of pronouncement -06-2018 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against order of the CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dated 10-0…

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

…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. Matrix Comsec Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Range-4, Baroda

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

ITA 2907/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

Section 143(3)Section 35

…legal position. 9. We find that the question whether an approval under section 35(2AB) can relate back to an earlier assessment year was decided, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sandan Vikas India Limited [(2012) 335 ITR 117 (Del)], but , in the impugned order, earned CIT(A) has distinguished the said ore on the ground it pefrtained to the assessment year 2005-06 in which the DSIR guidelines in force during the assessment year 2010-11 were not applicable. This plea, however, can no longer be accepted. It is so for the reason that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case…

M/S. Matrix Comsec Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Range-4, Baroda

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

ITA 2446/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

Section 143(3)Section 35

…legal position. 9. We find that the question whether an approval under section 35(2AB) can relate back to an earlier assessment year was decided, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sandan Vikas India Limited [(2012) 335 ITR 117 (Del)], but , in the impugned order, earned CIT(A) has distinguished the said ore on the ground it pefrtained to the assessment year 2005-06 in which the DSIR guidelines in force during the assessment year 2010-11 were not applicable. This plea, however, can no longer be accepted. It is so for the reason that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case…

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

…ruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2017) 84 taxmann.com 45 (Del), wherein reference was made to the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Guj) and the CIT Vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117 (Del). 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against the claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act i.e. expenditure incurred on Research & Development activity. For computation of business income under section 35 of the Act, expenditure on scientific research is…

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

…en considered by the DSIR while granting the approval. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions : (i) CIT Vs. Mastek Limited 228 Taxmann 377 (Guj) (ii) ACIT Vs. ECIL 140 ITR 221 (Hyd) (iii) CIT Vs. Southern Vikas India Limited 335 ITR 117 (Del) Thus the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that if the deduction is not found as per the provisions of the Act then the Tribunal prescribed authority. He has further contended that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction only to the extent of the expenditure approved by the DSIR in the certificate and therefore neith…

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

…law, the assessee company agreed to surrender the weighted deduction claimed for the period upto the date of approval, as the assessee was not aware of the direct decision 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 ye…

Elgi Equipments Ltd., Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 973/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 973/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT
Section 115JSection 234BSection 234CSection 35

…of income filed. As per assessee it was eligible for 200% deduction on revenue expenditure also. Relying on the of judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd (2010) (326 ITR 251) and that of Hon’ble Delhi (2011) (335 ITR 117), assessee submitted before the ld. Assessing Officer that it was eligible for weighted deduction of 200% on the revenue expenditure also. Contention of the assessee was that competent authority had authority only to approve the research and development facility but not the amount of expenditure eligible for weighted deduction. Assessee also poi…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Prestige Builders, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4596/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…e with the mandatory conditions of the law and thus, the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB. Our view is fortified by many judgments. We place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd., 335 ITR 117 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has relying upon another judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) has taken a similar view. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ackruti City Ltd., 31 taxmann.com 275 (Bombay) wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Co…

Gharda Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 9(1), Mumbai

ITA 5348/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. Pan: Aaacg 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./Ita/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8376/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1) Bandra (W),Mumbai-50. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/8758/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 वष" Dcit, Circle-9(1) Vs. M/S.Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 018. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Debashish Chandra Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal Bohra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri Gopal BohraFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra
Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई “केकेकेके” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“K”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं सी. एन. "साद,"याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/5474/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 DCIT, Circle-9(1) Gharda Chemicals Limited Churchgate,Mumbai-400 020. 5/6, Jer Mansion, W.P. Varde Marg, Vs. Off Turner Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50. PAN: AAACG 1255 E आयकर अपील सं./ITA/5348/Mum/2009,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2004-05 Gharda Chemicals Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1) Mumbai-400 050. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-40002…

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Prestige Builders, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3355/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja: Ito-16(2)(4) Vs M/S. Prestige Builders 1St Floor, 297, Old Tardeo Road, (Appellant) Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 007. Pan : Aakfm1063B (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Kirtney (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ITO-16(2)(4) Vs M/s. Prestige Builders 1st floor, 297, Old Tardeo Road, (Appellant) Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400 007. PAN : AAKFM1063B (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.R. Kirtney (DR) Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 10/02/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 24/02/2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM : This appeal is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (in short referred to as „CIT(A)‟) against the order passed by the Assessing Office…