← All Phrases

“scientific research expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 35Section 3555 judgments

The decision most relied on for scientific research expenditure is CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251), cited in 196 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on scientific research expenditure

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.
335 ITR 117 · 2011 · High Court
112
citing judgments

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.

Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. CIT
350 ITR 366 · 2013 · High Court
68
citing judgments

Expenses, including scientific research or head office expenses, cannot be allocated to units eligible for deductions under sections 80IB or 80IC unless there is a clear nexus between the expenditure and the specific eligible unit for computing the deduction.

Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT
96 Taxmann.com 576 · 2018 · ITAT
67
citing judgments

The weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure under Section 35(2AB) is allowable, clarifying that the requirement for the prescribed authority to approve or quantify the expenditure from year to year became effective only from April 1, 2016, through amendments to Rule 6(7A)(b).

CIT v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
31 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court
65
citing judgments

Section 35(2AB), an incentive provision, allows weighted deduction for expenditure 'on in-house research or development facility' even if related activities like clinical trials are conducted externally, provided they are for the in-house research. This requires a liberal interpretation of the provision.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT
162 ITD 484 · 2017 · ITAT
47
citing judgments

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.

Tejas Network Ltd. v. DCIT
60 Taxmann.com 309 · 2015 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot question the correctness of the certificate issued by the prescribed authority for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure. The deduction is limited to the amount approved and certified by the competent authority.

Banco Products (India) Ltd. v. DCIT
95 Taxmann.com 132 · 2018 · High Court
36
citing judgments

A subsequent approval of Form 3CL does not invalidate a claim for deduction under Section 35(2AB) if the expenditure was otherwise approved. The deduction is available for expenditure incurred, even if the approval format was obtained later.

Judgments citing scientific research expenditure

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)

available. 11.9. Notification No.245 of 2004 [S.O.1021(E)], dated 21/09/2004 reads as under: “SECTION 35(2AB)(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH EXPENDITURE - NOTIFIED ARTICLE OR THING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (1) OF SECTION 5(2AB)(1) NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 1021(E), DATED

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

facility u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 4.1 The facts as discernible from the records are that, the assessee had incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue and capital, at its approved in-house R&D facility. According to the AO, the assessee had claimed weighted deduction of Rs.731

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

facility u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 4.1 The facts as discernible from the records are that, the assessee had incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue and capital, at its approved in-house R&D facility. According to the AO, the assessee had claimed weighted deduction of Rs.731

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

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

ITA 2379/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 14A

facts as discernible from records are that, the assessee had The facts as discernible from records are that, the assessee had incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their earch expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their earch expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their approved in-house R&D facility

M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-II, Chennai

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

ITA 2377/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 14ASection 35

facts as discernible from record The facts as discernible from records is that, the assessee had s is that, the assessee had incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue & capital, at their approved

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

said expenditure i.e., Rs.25,67,770/- to Meghalya unit and accordingly re- calculated the deduction u/s.80IE. The stand of the assessee is that scientific research expenditure relates to Chennai unit only. The Meghalaya unit has not benefitted from the research and development carried out for Chennai unit. The authorities below

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 962/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 10ASection 2Section 234BSection 250Section 32A

also did not accept the alternate submission of the assessee that differential amount of Rs. 14.71 crores should be allowed as regular scientific research expenditure u/s. 35(1)(i). 25. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 26. Before us, the Ld.AR reiterated the submissions made before

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Lupin Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4325/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 4325/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A/RFor Respondent: Shir Lieder Panicker, Sr.D/R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act has significance. Further, the date of approval shall not be cut off date for allowing scientific research expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 39. Considering that the facts for the year under consideration being similar, we respectfully follow the above decision

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

case. M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd. :: 9 :: 6. Here it is seen that it is the assessee's stand that it had incurred in- house Scientific Research expenditure (capital and revenue). It had claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2)(AB) of the Act, as under: i. Revenue expenditure of Rs.10 ... question. 8. It is seen that as rightly contended on behalf of the assessee, section 35 of the Act grants deduction for Scientific Research expenditure, under the circumstances prescribed there-under, on compliance of the conditions laid down in various provisions of section 35. Now, whereas in some cases, like

Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

prejudice to the above, the NFAC has erred in rejecting the alternative contention of the assessee that in case the weighted deduction of scientific research expenditure is not allowable, then at least 100% of the total amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of scientific research shall ... prejudice to the above, the NFAC has erred in rejecting the alternative contention of the assessee that in case the weighted reduction of scientific research expenditure is not allowable, then at least 100% of the total amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of scientific research shall

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Navin Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

ITA 9/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: 30/05/2024
Section 14A

erred in allowing deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of "The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of scientific research expenditure on Form 3CL wherein fact the actual scientific research expenditure on Form 3CL wherein fact the actual scientific research expenditure on Form 3CL wherein fact the actual ... ground No. 7 of the appeal of the Revenue related to deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act of scientific research expenditure deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act of scientific research expenditure deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act of scientific research expenditure is concerned

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act has significance. Further, the date of approval shall not be cut off date for allowing scientific research expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 39. Considering that the facts for the year under consideration being similar, we respectfully follow the above decision

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act has significance. Further, the date of approval shall not be cut off date for allowing scientific research expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 39. Considering that the facts for the year under consideration being similar, we respectfully follow the above decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 888/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.888/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ………. Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata. Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aabcb2066P) …………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr) Appeared For Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 19.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 24.03.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Read With Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act By Ao, Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 22.03.2021. 2. There Is A Delay Of 93 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By The Revenue Which Is Placed On Record. After Perusal Of The Same, We Notice That I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2023 A Y: 2018-19, Britannia Industries Ltd. Though The Impugned Order Was Passed On 24.03.2023 But The Same Was Received In The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata On 04.08.2023 To This Effect A Certificate Is Filed By The Revenue Authorities. Considering This To Be Reasonable Cause & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

appellate authority assessee failed to file Form 3CL, however, ld. CIT(A) allowed the alternate plea seeking normal deduction i.e. 100% of the scientific research expenditure. We have noticed that the assessee’s appeal for the very same assessment i.e. AY 2018-19 came up before this Tribunal ... deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The facts as discernible from the records are that the appellant had incurred scientific research expenditure, both revenue and capital, at their approved in-house R&D facility at Bengaluru, aggregating to Rs.17,81,44,605/ -. The appellant is noted to have

Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Payers Tax Unit, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1067/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George K. George & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37

ITA No.1067/Bang/2023 Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE K. GEORGE

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 68

17/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Navin Constructions & Credit Pvt. Ltd. 7 Assessing Officer to examine the issues of donation for scientific research expenditure as well as disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It is discernible from the fact that the two issues relating to scientific research expenditure and disallowance ... also not the case that while examining the issue of unsecured loans the ld. Assessing Officer found some connection with the issues of scientific research expenditure or disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus it is an admitted fact that the ld. Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction provided for limited

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

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

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Limited Asst. year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Further, the date of approval shall not be cut off date for allowing scientific research expenditure u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act.” Following the above said decision, we reject both the contentions of the revenue. 11.5 We noticed that

DCIT- 3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2588/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

provisions of sec.35(2AB) of the Act empowers DSIR to approve the Scientific Research facility only and it does not empower certification of scientific research expenditure. Accordingly it was contended that the amendment made in the Income tax Rules without making enabling provision 9 Reliance Industries

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2587/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

provisions of sec.35(2AB) of the Act empowers DSIR to approve the Scientific Research facility only and it does not empower certification of scientific research expenditure. Accordingly it was contended that the amendment made in the Income tax Rules without making enabling provision 9 Reliance Industries

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2318/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 32Section 35

provisions of sec.35(2AB) of the Act empowers DSIR to approve the Scientific Research facility only and it does not empower certification of scientific research expenditure. Accordingly it was contended that the amendment made in the Income tax Rules without making enabling provision 9 Reliance Industries