Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

162 ITD 484Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#2441 most cited

What is Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT authority for?

The approval of an in-house R&D centre through Form 3CM is the primary document for claiming weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure. The case clarifies the significance of this form and the role of the prescribed authority (DSIR) in the approval process.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT · 162 ITD 484 · Section 35(2AB) · weighted deduction · scientific research expenditure · in-house R&D centre approval · Form 3CM · DSIR · Section 35(1)(i)

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 14ASection 35(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35(1)(i)

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expendituresection 35(1)(i)section 8d(2)(ii)section 35absection 35(1)section 35(1)(iv)weighted deductionsection 115jaasection 35(2ab)section 115osection 237section 39

Judgments citing Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT

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)

…amounts of expenditure had been inserted in the said form No. 3CL. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that form No. 3CL is merely a report in the form of intimation regarding approval of in-house R&D facility to be sent from prescribed authority's end to the Department and once the facility is approved in form No. 3CM, the expenses incurred within the notified period have to be allowed…

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

…claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act:-  ACIT v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals: IT Appeal No. 3569/Ahd/2004 (Ahd Trib.)  Coromandel International Ltd vs. ADIT: ITA No. 101/Hyd/2012 (Hyd Trib.)  Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT: 162 ITD 484 (Ahd. Trib.)  ACIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.: ITA No. 3599 & 3806/Mum/2015 (Mum. Trib.)  Minilec India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 690/Pun/2015 (Pune Trib.)  Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT: 191 TTJ 9 (Kol. Trib.) (URO) 15. Ld. AR further submitted that a useful reference can also be made to the following decisions wherein the C…

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

…claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act:-  ACIT v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals: IT Appeal No. 3569/Ahd/2004 (Ahd Trib.)  Coromandel International Ltd vs. ADIT: ITA No. 101/Hyd/2012 (Hyd Trib.)  Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. PCIT: 162 ITD 484 (Ahd. Trib.)  ACIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.: ITA No. 3599 & 3806/Mum/2015 (Mum. Trib.)  Minilec India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 690/Pun/2015 (Pune Trib.)  Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT: 191 TTJ 9 (Kol. Trib.) (URO) 15. Ld. AR further submitted that a useful reference can also be made to the following decisions wherein the C…

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under\nconsideration

ITA 1585/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

…house R & D facility by the prescribed authority. Undisputedly,\nthere is no mention or approval of the quantum of expenditure.\n\n10. Then, as observed by the Ahmedbad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of\nSun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 as\napproved by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide its decision reported at 250\ntaxmann 270, it has been held that the objective of Form 3CL is limited to the\nforwarding of the intimation of the approval of the unit; that Form No. 3CL is\na mere report for intimation of approval of R & D facility. In this regard, as\nrightly pointed out, such…

CREST SPECIALITY RESINS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHEDA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD (NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

ITA 1583/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

…d in-house R & D facility by the prescribed authority. Undisputedly, there is no mention or approval of the quantum of expenditure. 10. Then, as observed by the Ahmedbad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 as approved by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court vide its decision reported at 250 taxmann 270, it has been held that the objective of Form 3CL is limited to the forwarding of the intimation of the approval of the unit; that Form No. 3CL is a mere report for intimation of approval of R & D facility. In this regard, as rightly pointed out, such aspec…

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2868/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…e perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra), wherein, by relying upon the order of Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sub Pharmaceutical Industries ltd. v. PCIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 and the order of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT [20180 96 Taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Tribunal), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: 12. It would also be apt to reproduce here-under the provisions substituted in clause (b) of sub rule (7A) of Rule 6, as brought in by the amend…

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2867/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…e perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra), wherein, by relying upon the order of Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sub Pharmaceutical Industries ltd. v. PCIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 and the order of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT [20180 96 Taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Tribunal), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: 12. It would also be apt to reproduce here-under the provisions substituted in clause (b) of sub rule (7A) of Rule 6, as brought in by the amend…

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

ITA 2866/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2865, 2866, 2867 & 2868/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/S. Carborundum Universal Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Limited, No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House Moore Street,Chennai Gpo Parrys, – 600 001. Pan: Aaacc-2474-P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]All Dated10.09.2024 For Assessment Years 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19.Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…e perused the case law relied on by the Id. Counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra), wherein, by relying upon the order of Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sub Pharmaceutical Industries Itd. v. PCIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 and the order of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT [20180 96 Taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Tribunal), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: 12. It would also be apt to reproduce here-under the provisions substituted in clause (b) of sub rule (7A) of Rule 6, as brought in by the amend…

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2865/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

…e perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra), wherein, by relying upon the order of Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sub Pharmaceutical Industries ltd. v. PCIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 and the order of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT [20180 96 Taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Tribunal), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: 12. It would also be apt to reproduce here-under the provisions substituted in clause (b) of sub rule (7A) of Rule 6, as brought in by the amend…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

…e perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra), wherein, by relying upon the order of Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sub Pharmaceutical Industries ltd. v. PCIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 and the order of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT [20180 96 Taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Tribunal), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: 12. It would also be apt to reproduce here-under the provisions substituted in clause (b) of sub rule (7A) of Rule 6, as brought in by the amend…

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

…e perused the case law relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in the case of ACIT v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra), wherein, by relying upon the order of Ahmedabad Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Sub Pharmaceutical Industries ltd. v. PCIT (2017) 162 ITD 484 and the order of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT [20180 96 Taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Tribunal), the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has observed and held as under: 12. It would also be apt to reproduce here-under the provisions substituted in clause (b) of sub rule (7A) of Rule 6, as brought in by the amend…

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 v. M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The DCIT, 98-A, 7th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [PAN: AAACS 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /R…

J.B.CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

…following cases: 15 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd i. Indfrag Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 98 (Bang.) of 2018, dated 30-7-2020] ii. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 (Ahd. - Trib.) - This has been subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court iii. Cummins India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune - Trib.) 117. The AO in the present case has not disputed the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of the above discussions and judicial precedents on this issue, we hold that the…

J.B.CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

…following cases: 15 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd i. Indfrag Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 98 (Bang.) of 2018, dated 30-7-2020] ii. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 (Ahd. - Trib.) - This has been subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court iii. Cummins India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune - Trib.) 117. The AO in the present case has not disputed the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of the above discussions and judicial precedents on this issue, we hold that the…

J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

…following cases: 15 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd i. Indfrag Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 98 (Bang.) of 2018, dated 30-7-2020] ii. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 (Ahd. - Trib.) - This has been subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court iii. Cummins India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune - Trib.) 117. The AO in the present case has not disputed the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of the above discussions and judicial precedents on this issue, we hold that the…

J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

…following cases: 15 2008 & 2009/Mum/2019 ITA 4656 & 4657/M/2018 J.B. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd i. Indfrag Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 98 (Bang.) of 2018, dated 30-7-2020] ii. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 (Ahd. - Trib.) - This has been subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court iii. Cummins India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune - Trib.) 117. The AO in the present case has not disputed the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of the above discussions and judicial precedents on this issue, we hold that the…

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 92C

…e Assessee." 11.6.10. Similar view has been taken by various other Tribunals in the following cases: i. Indfrag Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 98 (Bang.) of 2018, dated 30-7- 2020] ii. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 (Ahd. - Trib.) - This has been subsequently confirmed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court iii. Cummins India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune - Trib.) 117. The AO in the present case has not disputed the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of the above discussions and judicial precedents on this issue, we hold that the…

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…appeal of the Assessee." 116. Similar view has been taken by various other Tribunals in the following cases: i. M/s.Indfrag Limited v. ACIT [ITA No.98/Bang/2018 - order dated 30.07.2020] ii. M/s.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT, reported in (2017) 162 ITD 484 (Ahmedabad Trib.) – This has been subsequently confirmed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court iii. Cummins India Limited v. DCIT [ITA No.309/Pun/2014 - order dated 15.05.2018] 117. The AO in the present case has not disputed the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of the above discussions and judicial precedents on this issue, we hold…

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…appeal of the Assessee." 116. Similar view has been taken by various other Tribunals in the following cases: i. M/s.Indfrag Limited v. ACIT [ITA No.98/Bang/2018 - order dated 30.07.2020] ii. M/s.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT, reported in (2017) 162 ITD 484 (Ahmedabad Trib.) – This has been subsequently confirmed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court iii. Cummins India Limited v. DCIT [ITA No.309/Pun/2014 - order dated 15.05.2018] 117. The AO in the present case has not disputed the correctness of the claim made by the assessee. In view of the above discussions and judicial precedents on this issue, we hold…

M/S. MICRO LABS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nisha Padma, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(AB)

…cility by the prescribed authority. Undisputedly, there is no mention or approval of the quantum of expenditure. 10. Then, as observed by the Ahmedbad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 202/162 ITD 484 as approved by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide its decision reported at 250 taxmann 270, it has been held that the objective of Form 3CL is limited to the forwarding of the intimation of the approval of the unit; that Form No. 3CL is a mere report for intimation of approval of R & D facility. In this regard, as rightly pointed out, such aspec…

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT (162 ITD 484) — Cited in 47 Judgments | BharatTax